![Future of Independent Journalism and Public Interest Information with Patrice Schneider [PODCAST]](https://4liberty.eu/phidroav/2025/12/Patrice-Schneider1-1024x1024.jpg "Future of Independent Journalism and Public Interest Information with Patrice Schneider [PODCAST]")
How to deal with the weaponization of information? What is the future (if any) of independent journalism? What does public interest information mean and why should it be protected? Have we lost the shared understanding of the world? And, if that is the case, how can we restore it? Leszek Jazdzewski (Fundacja Liberte!) talks with Patrice Schneider, Chief Strategy Officer at the Media Development Investment Fund. He started as a war correspondent in 1980s conflict zones, then spent two decades in media management at Hachette and Time Warner — a transition that proved surprisingly relevant. For 23 years at the Media Development Investment Fund, he has channeled that early idealism into pragmatic action — co-designing impact investment vehicles for independent media and mobilizing €171 million to fight media capture across emerging democracies. He is now turning his focus on building something entirely new: a lab reimagining public interest information that supports any form of public interest information that serves democratic sense-making.
Leszek Jazdzewski (LJ): You have once stated that journalism became a model for self-preservation of the concept of the ‘guild’ from the Middle Ages. In light of this, why are you fighting so hard to preserve this obsolete profession?
Patrice Schneider (PS): First of all, I am a journalist. I started my career as a war reporter for Reporters Without Borders and later moved to the business side of media, which is not a traditional path. So, in that sense, I am part of that ‘guild’.
However, the controversy that I am creating with this idea of a guild that self-preserves is a well-intended one. It is not meant to be derogatory to the role that journalism has played in the 200 or 400 years since Camille Desmoulins during the French Revolution or the Swedish newspapers four centuries ago. I am not demeaning that, but I am saying that we have come to a point in human history where the role of only journalism feeding what I call ‘public interest information’ is perhaps not enough. To try to safeguard just that one part of this public interest information ecosystem may not be the best approach. It is only a part of a much larger ecosystem that exists right now.
To give you an example, if you take the meta-concept of public interest information, which has served the human journey since the Enlightenment with its fact-based, critical thinking, and deliberative conversations, today, journalism is not the only vector. You have digital disruptions, you have young people creating economies, you have communities organizing themselves without necessarily needing journalists, and you have applications being developed to feed that.
If you are trying to save journalism and claiming, ‘we will be the sole safeguard to public interest information,’ you are blindsiding yourself from part of the digital disruption. This disruption is not necessarily bad. While there is a lot of bad on social media, we have to be careful about such statements. The world is changing, and young people are taking control of public interest information and want to participate in it.
LJ: Where would this public interest information framework apply? Where do you think it actually makes sense for people who do not follow particular outlets to basically pay for them as taxpayers? Are you suggesting that people who are not interested in certain media will be required to pay for those media, or do you mean something else by that?
PS: First of all, public interest information will be extremely difficult to define, but it is my contention that the democratic situation (certainly in Eastern and Western Europe) forces us not to use that as an excuse. We can no longer say we will never define what public interest information is, as there are too many things to consider. My first point is that we cannot afford not to do this anymore.
Regarding the European Union, which concerns Poland, the budget proposal for 2028-2034 is two trillion euro. In this budget, you have traditional infrastructure mechanisms to trigger private capital for water, roads, hospitals, etc. There are numbers linked to exactly all of this traditional infrastructure. My contention is to say, in 2025, in view of what I have just said, could we agree that public interest information, what we need to decide as citizens, is actually an infrastructure? If you agree with that, then we can start thinking not necessarily about giving subsidies to independent media or to journalism, but rather looking at it as an infrastructure by which capital from the EU could trigger private capital.
The second point is that, yes, it is difficult to define public interest information, but we cannot afford not to do it anymore. Perhaps there are many ways to look at it if we step outside the role of journalists saying, ‘Well, if you do not have a press card, you are not serving the public interest.’ That is a caricature, but this caricature has some bearing.
If you look at it, perhaps the way to approach it is to begin by examining the function of journalism – setting aside the guild and focusing instead on its purpose. Then you arrive at concepts such as ‘sense-making.’ If you think about collating and gleaning information, reporting fact-based conversations, or enabling dialogue, then perhaps it becomes possible to consider these functions without referring exclusively to the guild that has carried them out brilliantly for many hundreds of years, or to the sector – let us not call it the guild, although there remains an element of that. If you accept this, you may come closer to a definition.
Another comment I would offer is that we can find a way to define it. Perhaps in Europe there are multiple definitions of public interest information. Maybe it is not identical everywhere. My initial instinct was to search for a universal definition, but through conversations with sociologists, historians, biologists, journalists, and others, the conclusion is that there may not be a single definition. There may instead be a body of knowledge that enables us to understand what information citizens need in order to function.
One additional point: if you look at the GDP of the G7 countries today, seventy percent of their economies – the largest economies in the world – is information-based. That struck me when I read it recently. Seventy percent! Humanity’s trajectory has moved from agriculture to manufacturing, and now to information. This reinforces the argument that information is, in fact, an infrastructure.
The next point I want to make is a political one. Is it possible that Europe will be the last place in the world where public interest information is treated as infrastructure? The United States may be in the process of dismantling it, and I am not certain that the rest of the world will build it. Therefore, is Europe, consistent with its tradition – imperfect as it may be – going to be the last place where public interest information is recognized as infrastructure? We see it as a vital democratic infrastructure required for societies to function. It does not sound unreasonable when you think about it; it is simply a matter of framing.
Finally, with regard to Poland, we are currently in conversation with the architects of the Multiannual Financial Framework, the MFF – the two-trillion-euro budget. We are trying to make this case. And the argument is very simple: first, that public interest information is an infrastructure; and second, that we should consider how we fund water provision – using new funding for water, roads, hospitals, and the European Investment Bank to trigger private capital. Let us look at that model: it is very straightforward. And that is the case we would like to present.
At the moment, I am thinking about something like the Weimar Triangle – three countries acting as three pressure points – not the whole of Europe, not the entire EU, but a focused group. It appears that the history of the Weimar Triangle – Poland, Germany, and France – could play a symbolic and practical role in bringing a concrete request to the European institutions: ‘Please consider public interest information in the budget of the next framework.’ Will it work? I do not know. But as I said earlier, we can no longer afford not to do this. We must try.
LJ: How do you respond to challenges that frame foreign or externally funded media as a threat to national sovereignty? How can such concerns be addressed, particularly in environments where narratives about ‘foreign’ or ‘Soros-linked’ media are actively promoted by the far right and other voices?
PS: What I would like to propose to the European Union — and it is a very long shot, with almost no chance of succeeding — through the Weimar Triangle, is a complete reframing. We need to reset our assumptions. Immediate reflex, which is also mine, is to think in terms of media: structures, ownership, foreigners. But why do we think in this way?
We should consider this a matter of public interest information. Do we worry about who owns a hospital? We do worry about who owns the water supply because profit is extracted from it, yes. But again, if we reframe information as infrastructure, we may reach a different point of departure.
This is why the sector of journalism is so important: it creates a kind of radiance within the public conversation. Yet, when we use the word ‘infrastructure,’ we automatically think of television or radio. That is how you think, and that is how I think. However, I believe democracy requires a reframing. It will not work if we continue to speak only in terms of ‘media,’ because that is where politics immediately enters the debate: Who owns it? What agenda is behind it? And so on.
It is a long-term effort, but it is worth attempting. At the very least, it may be something meaningful for our children.
LJ: How should we understand your proposal for alternative models of financing media, beyond advertising, public ownership, or the limited success of subscription models? How does your approach combine independent journalism with efforts to prevent authoritarian capture of media while also incorporating business investment? In cases such as the Polish example you mentioned, to what extent are these arrangements business ventures, and to what extent are they acts of public-interest support? How do you structure such deals, and how are they made possible in practice?
PS: The MDIF (Media Development Investment Fund) is a thirty-year-old idea. It is a nonprofit organization that combines the characteristics of a human rights institution with those of an investment fund. It is as interesting and as fascinating as it sounds. The idea was developed by a Serbian journalist, Sasha Vučinić, who founded the MDIF on the following premise: instead of offering only grants, could we provide two things to the most independent voices in emerging democracies? First, affordable capital, and second, capacity-building that would allow them to become sustainable and, ultimately, able to repay that capital.
At the time, in 1996, there was no impact investment and no concept of responsible investment. The question was whether the forces of the market could be used to support the societal value created by independent media. What began as a one-million-dollar bet thirty years ago has now resulted in the deployment of three hundred twenty-eight million dollars across fifty-one countries with histories of media oppression.
The core principle of the MDIF – and the foundation for what we hope to propose at the EU level – is the belief that financial independence leads to editorial independence, and editorial independence enables genuine societal impact. This is the DNA of the MDIF.
As we were approaching 2025, after three decades of work, we have come to understand that ownership will be critical for supporting independent media and helping journalists organize effectively. In Europe, there is a tradition of what we now call ‘media-owning stewardship entities’ – organizations owned by a foundation, a trust, or sometimes even a private company whose bylaws explicitly protect both the mission and the value of the enterprise. The Scott Trust owns The Guardian. Schibsted, a major media group, is owned by a trust. Across Europe, there are approximately twenty such entities providing what we describe as ‘media-owning stewardship’.
This tradition strongly supports the argument for treating quality, independent journalism as public interest information. It reflects the understanding that the sector requires stewardship; the mission and the business must be held in balance. Ownership, therefore, is essential.
The MDIF has practiced this model for thirty years. We act as a media-owning steward. We hold equity stakes in organizations ranging from Rappler in the Philippines, led by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa, to independent outlets in Guatemala and elsewhere. When I write about these issues, it is because I believe Europe may once again be showing how newspapers can be owned in a way that balances mission, independence, and sustainability.
Although the MDIF is often portrayed as too business-oriented, in reality we operate at the very intersection of two worlds. We are a human rights organization committed to the right to unfettered access to information, and we are an investment fund. We refer to this as the ‘third way’: it is neither a purely market-based approach nor a charitable model. It is something in between.
This is why we are encouraging the European Union to move not toward subsidizing journalism, but toward using EU funds to catalyze private capital – to create a link between the two. I would also add that an increasing portion of our portfolio consists of clients who reflect a new wave of public interest information providers. They are not only traditional journalistic organizations. They are part of a broader shift in how information that serves the public good is produced and sustained.
LJ: Is the funding still primarily private, and are you expected to generate a profit? Given the limited readership of many legacy newspapers, is it realistic to expect that such investments will ever be recovered? Do investors calculate the likelihood of returns, or do they simply invest without concern for potential financial gain?
PS: First of all, the MDIF has a thirty-year record of returning capital with interest, and returning it on time. We are a nonprofit, but let us be clear: it is a business. It functions as a business.
Secondly, how do we do this? This is where the logic of an investment fund becomes relevant. We are a combination of two worlds. If you speak with an investment fund and ask how they operate, they will explain that there is always a blended logic. Do you think that every venture capital investment generates a thirty percent EBITDA or IRR? No. They use a mix. They try different approaches, balance different levels of risk, and construct an overall portfolio strategy. That is the first level. So why should a human rights organization dedicated to information, the public, and press freedom not learn from that? You support independent media, but you rely on the blend, the mix of risks, to create an overall viable model. That is the principle.
The second point is this: if you are a human rights organization and you operate in this way, you are not promising twenty percent returns – which, by the way, private equity also does not consistently deliver. Very few actors in the private equity world truly deliver what is written in the term sheet. We, instead, say openly that we will provide a lower return. And how do we justify that? By arguing that the difference between what an investor might earn in the general market and what we can reasonably offer represents the societal value of supporting independent media. That argument is gaining traction.
We have raised one hundred seventy-one million euros in Europe from impact investors who accept that they are not going to ‘make a killing’ from this. They can make a killing elsewhere. They are also using blended strategies in their own portfolios. So, we have reached a point that brings us back to the idea of journalism as public interest infrastructure.
The role of independent journalism in society today is such that we must recognize that we will not return the thirty-two percent EBITDA that newspapers produced until the 1990s, before digital disruption. That era is gone. But should we simply throw the baby out with the bathwater and declare that if independent media cannot deliver thirty-two percent, then it is another Kodak – another obsolete photographic printer? The societal cost of losing the free flow of independent information is not remotely comparable to the loss of photographic paper.
As such, it becomes a choice. I made my choice by working here. And we have managed to persuade impact investors by explaining that their own fields depend even more heavily on trust than ours does. If trust in the market collapses, nothing functions. And suddenly they realize: if there is no baseline of trust in society, if the numbers and reporting are not reliable, if the public sphere is not grounded in accurate information, then the financial system itself becomes unstable. That is when they understand the argument.
When media and journalism were cash machines earning thirty-two percent EBITDA from classified and display advertising, none of these questions arose. Today, with digital disruption, the question arises clearly: we can choose to let independent media die. But what would be the cost of that loss, compared to the disappearance of photographic print paper?
LJ: How should we think about the idea that those with the greatest stake in democracy ought to contribute to sustaining it, even if such efforts do not generate financial profit? Is the primary return in these cases a form of social value rather than monetary gain? You mentioned the erosion of a shared infrastructure of collective understanding. How can we begin to rebuild even a minimal sense of common ground? How can we respond to the narratives that successfully create emotional or ideological bonds, while the other side often struggles to do so? In an environment in which truth itself can be distorted, weaponized, or rendered irrelevant, how can we mitigate these dynamics? Do you believe it is possible to return to any form of shared collective understanding, and if so, how might we navigate toward it?
PS: I believe this is, in a sense, a philosophical and civilizational choice about whether we want to re-litigate the Enlightenment. Do we still believe in fact-driven, fact-based conversation? Do we believe in science? Do we believe in that entire framework? Once we agree on that, perhaps we can also acknowledge that the only path forward is not necessarily for the journalism sector to reinvent itself alone.
Let me share a futuristic project we are developing. In Paris, we aim to create the first ever Information for the Commons Lab. If you look at the 21 media labs around the world – from MIT to Shinjuku – they are excellent, but they are fundamentally designed to save media. They remain within the frame you and I both fall into, which is to assume that the issue is ‘media.’ Instead, I want us to create something that uses information for the common good.
In 2026, we will launch the first place in the world where young people – and older people as well – who are not necessarily journalists can come to create something that uses information for the common good. And in 2025, there are so many tools to do this, even though many of them are currently used for harmful purposes, as you have described. The question is: can we redirect them?
The Information for the Commons Lab would be launched with MIT and with a Paris-based organization called Learning Planet Institute, which brings together young people – and doctoral students from around the world to work on climate issues. They build prototypes for climate solutions. So, I asked them: why can we not have also a lab devoted to information for the common good? And I have convinced them. Now the question becomes: how do we do it?
To answer your question, here is my hunch. If we look back to the Enlightenment, perhaps we should examine what information for the common good means in biology. I recently learned – although since 1975 we already knew this – that cells share information. My late father-in-law, a world specialist in cellular communication in cancer, taught me this. We know that cells communicate. But what I have learned while thinking through the lab is that they communicate for the common good: they will act, they will change their shape, they may even die to save the liver. Empathic cells – they work for the collective.
What about sociology? I spoke with the remarkable Harvard professor Michèle Lamont, who studies how successful societies function. She explained that successful societies are defined by how they care for their most disenfranchised populations. She has built a sociological framework showing that the way a society treats its most vulnerable is correlated with its success.
I was less interested in the ideological dimension than in the question of how to measure this. And she said it is actually quite simple: we have ‘nexuses’ in society – social workers, sometimes religious leaders, sometimes very local community leaders – people who act as radars, gathering information. She calls them ‘meaning-makers.’She then looked at me and said: “Is that not what journalists are supposed to do?” Suddenly, from sociology, the link becomes obvious. So, my hunch is that perhaps anthropology, sociology, architecture – different fields – may help us find another way of thinking that takes us out of the usual political spectrum. What can they teach us?
Of course, there is a bias inherited from the Enlightenment: a commitment to fact-based conversation, shared truths, distinctions between what is real and what is not. And, of course, with literature and writing – whether in Polish or Swahili – there will always be ambiguity, but we cannot afford to abandon the quest for shared reality.
I am not saying this approach will work. But I am saying we must try something. And this is a new way of looking at the issue – one that brings all sectors into the discussion about information for the common good.
LJ: Given the uncertainty surrounding the future of journalism (and with the concept of the guild in mind), how should we think about its role in a world where storytelling and communication will persist as long as human societies exist? How do you believe we will navigate this need for shared stories and communication if traditional structures or institutions continue to change or decline?
PS: It is part of the human journey. But I think I must be careful with the ‘guild’ idea; I do not want to overstate it. The point is that sometimes one needs to be a bit extreme in order to make something clear. What I am trying to do is set journalism aside for a moment so that we can engage with other parts of society that also have a stake in information for the common good, or in public interest information. I want to open a conversation with them, because this is an extremely important moment.
My instinct is that the journalism sector – whether one calls it a guild or not – will eventually return to the center of the conversation. However, at this particular moment, in 2025, with everything happening in technology, we need to step back for a second. We need to listen to other options, other perspectives, other vantage points on what public interest information means.
This is not a negation of journalism. It is my field; it is what I do every day. These are the people I support, the people I try to keep out of prison, the people I assist around the world. I am simply saying: let us pause, let us widen the lens. I believe that widening the lens is the only way to truly define this space.
This podcast is produced by the European Liberal Forum in collaboration with Movimento Liberal Social and Fundacja Liberté!, with the financial support of the European Parliament. Neither the European Parliament nor the European Liberal Forum are responsible for the content or for any use that be made of.