Report

Toward Ethical Technology

/
March 28, 2022

The health of our American democracy depends upon equitable and safe digital spaces. 

Toward Ethical Technology: Framing Human Rights in the Future of Digital Innovation was written by Sabrina Hersi Issa, human rights technologist and Rights x Tech founder with Arpitha Peteru, co-lead of Foundation of Inclusion. The report examines and synthesizes intersectional movements to build better, more inclusive, and humane technologies. It also introduces a set of principles and inclusive frameworks to help platform, product, and policy leaders conceptualize intentional ethical technology that is responsive to the needs of impacted communities and shape meaningful interventions for systems-level shifts at the intersections of technology and human rights.

Rights x Tech is a forum and community that explicitly explores the intersections of technology and power. It brings together technologists, policymakers, and movement leaders for dialogue and solution-building on emerging issues around human rights, products, and power.

Report

Learning from Digital Democracy Initiative Grantees

January 20, 2022

Democracy Fund’s Digital Democracy Initiative (DDI) and its grantees are radically reimagining what it looks like to make platforms accountable to the American public and renew public interest media.

To support this work, the team’s evaluation and learning partner, ORS Impact, conducted learning conversations with DDI grantees in September and October 2021 to understand:

  • How grantees have responded to the past year
  • What it would take to better center racial equity in DDI’s strategy and in grantees’ work
  • Where grantees see opportunities in the current moment

The report summarizes findings about these three topics within and across learning conversations and raises considerations for funders about how to better center racial equity in their grant making, how to better support their grantees, and opportunities ripe for investment. The report encourages funders to reflect on these considerations and how they might be applicable to their strategy.

 

Blog

Meet the Ecosystem Builders: A unique group of leaders transforming local news

/
January 19, 2022

In 2020, two dozen Atlanta journalists gathered to take a hard look at the state of local media in Atlanta. A lack of diversity and commitment to community meant that many newsrooms weren’t responsive to the people they were supposed to serve. And on top of that, cuts and downsizing meant that there were fewer and fewer reporters to cover important things like local elections and education policy.

Read more

Op-Ed

Local Foundations Need Solid Local Journalism if They Hope to Advance Their Missions

/
November 16, 2021

First the good news: Philanthropy is starting to respond to the demise of local journalism with the urgency it deserves. In the past few years, major national efforts, such as the American Journalism ProjectReport for America, and NewsMatch have generated well over $200 million in philanthropic giving to news organizations across the United States. NewsMatch’s annual gift-matching campaign, which kicked off November 1, raised a record $47 million in individual donations in 2020 alone.

Read more.

Blog

Envisioning a Just and Open Digital Democracy: Expanding Our Commitment to Platform Accountability

/
September 14, 2021

Last month, after Facebook attempted to undermine the efforts of independent researchers — and Democracy Fund grantees — who were studying the effects of the platform on democracy, our President joined fellow NetGain Partnership leaders in releasing a joint letter calling for greater platform accountability and transparency. That open letter from some of the nation’s leading foundations noted: 

Our foundations share a vision for an open, secure, a nd equitable internet space where free expression, economic opportunity, knowledge exchange, and civic engagement can thrive. This attempt to impede the efforts of independent researchers is a call for us all to protect that vision, for the good of our communities, and the good of our democracy.”

Days later, the researchers who Facebook had sought to silence released a major study that illustrated how high the stakes are. Their research showed that during the 2020 election people found and clicked on misinformation on Facebook far more than accurate, factual news — further evidence that social media platforms are harming our democracy by amplifying content that accelerates hate, division, and misinformation. 

At Democracy Fund, there’s never been a question as to why we would support and advocate for platform accountability — it is central to our reason for being. In this moment, we have unprecedented opportunities to make social media companies liable for their harms, to rein in the worst aspects of their business model, and to force changes in how they operate. If we are successful, we can move toward a world where social media companies enable multiracial and pluralistic democracy, instead of fracturing it, where facts are amplified, rather than discounted, and where there is accountability for hate speech and incitements to violence.

It took some careful and collaborative thinking for us to determine our theory of change, as well as what our support on this issue could look like. To meet this moment, here at Democracy Fund, we have started to significantly increase our grantmaking to nonprofit organizations who are working deeply on these issues, and often at the intersection of advocacy, public will-building, and litigation. We’re deepening our partnerships with a mix of grassroots organizers, researchers, communicators, lobbyists, and litigators, and building on our work with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

At the heart of our grantmaking will be Black and Indigenous people, and people of color, and the harms they face as a result of social media platforms. Conspiracy, extremism and prejudice are magnified on social media in ways that are vastly disproportionate to their actual representation in society and are normalized by the spread from harmful algorithms and networks.

Together, our grantees will be working on three key areas to transform our digital public square: 

  1. Anti-Discrimination and Data Privacy: Ensuring that social media companies and their systems cannot use personal data to discriminate or track and target people in ways that lead to disparate impact;
  2. Platform Liability: Transforming the policy frameworks for how social media platforms are held liable for the online and offline harms their systems and choices produce; and 
  3. Transparency: Opening up social media platforms to new levels of transparency regarding the impact of their systems on our democracy and civil rights to enable audits and reporting by journalists, researchers and policymakers. 

This work will spread across communities, courtrooms and the halls of congress, and will be built on a growing movement of organizations working at the intersection of civil rights and platform accountability. We are grateful for the work that others have done in this space and know we can’t do it alone. As Democracy Fund President Joe Goldman has said, “tackling democracy’s cybersecurity problem requires collective action” and our efforts will do just that. We’ll share more about this growing area of work soon.

If you’re interested in learning more, or partnering with us in this effort, please drop me a line at pwaters [@] democracyfundvoice.org.

Blog

How journalism funders can move past the pipeline myth

/
September 2, 2021
  • Table of Contents

Journalists of color make up less than 17 percent of newsroom staff, and account for just 13 percent of newsroom leadership. Why are these numbers still so low? And what is our responsibility as funders?

As we’ve said before, there are serious inequities that need to be addressed to create a culture of journalism that helps people meaningfully participate in our democracy. One of the most persistent is this lack of diversity in newsrooms. This is a problem because newsrooms that do not reflect their communities are not able to serve their communities. Full stop. 

So what’s going on? The leadership of majority-white newsrooms still latches onto the myth that there’s a pipeline problem — blaming the lack of diversity on a lack of job candidates. But past research has shown that graduates of color are hired by newsrooms at lower rates than their white counterparts, while a recent survey shows a disturbing trend of mostly mid-career, Black women exiting the industry. Namely, the candidates are there, but newsroom leadership is failing to hire and retain them. Let’s dig into why this pipeline myth is so persistently harmful, what’s really happening, and what funders can do. 

A look under the hood of the pipeline myth

Basically, what’s happening is that some newsroom leaders are relying on exclusionary recruiting efforts, such as:

  • Prioritizing applicants from elite journalism schools that are often alienating institutions themselves  
  • Trying to attract talent via unpaid internships that are prohibitive for professionals from low-income backgrounds
  • Calling on their existing networks that reflect and replicate the same inequities 

When instead they could be lifting barriers by: 

  • Looking beyond top-ranked journalism schools (or even college degrees!)
  • Shifting recruiting efforts to focus on the talent found inside groups like the Asian American Journalists Association, National Association of Black Journalists, National Association of Hispanic Journalists, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association, South Asian Journalists Association – by building authentic relationships, not just reaching out when newsrooms want to circulate a job posting. 
  • Hacking the hiring process.

But the real myth of the “pipeline problem” is that diversifying newsrooms is all about hiring. It’s not. It’s also about building an inclusive culture that supports the growth and leadership of journalists from all backgrounds.

The deeper issue: newsroom culture

For years, journalists of color have been sounding the alarm on an industry that consistently undermines their lived experiences, excludes them from leadership roles, and pushes them out when they dare to push back. 

Last summer, when Black reporters spoke up about the emotional trauma of covering the killings of Black men and women, editors responded by disqualifying them from being objective. They failed to provide them with the support that covering these traumatic stories require. And still, many Black journalists bore the burden of reporting on civil unrest and racism in this country in newsrooms that lacked a deep understanding of racism. Journalists of color, and specifically Black women in journalism, are disproportionately targets of the worst online abuse and harassment when covering these issues. These stories made front pages and headlines, but they came at a steep personal and professional cost. 

These issues contribute to hostile environments for journalists from marginalized communities, who are expected to leave their identities at the door until they’re forced to educate their colleagues on issues that hit close to home. 

There are many things that newsrooms can do to create a more inclusive environment — from turning to guidance from groups like Journalists of Color on Slack and the Journalists of Color Resource Guide that offer a community for minorities to access support and resources that help them navigate the field, to engaging in difficult conversations about media industry biases that hinder journalists of color. One of these is the myth of “objectivity”, which is rooted in the lens of white men and largely ignores the perspectives and expertise of Black and brown reporters.

As funders, it is our responsibility to follow the lead of these reporters. It is critical that we center the experiences of those most frequently and deeply marginalized within their newsrooms and journalism in our grantmaking practices. We must ensure our investments are not propping up harmful institutions with bandaid solutions, and instead supporting genuine, radical change. 

Funding power building is key

If you’re going to fund efforts around increasing newsroom diversity and building more inclusive newsrooms, you must also invest in the power building and sharing efforts that journalists of color are leading. This means funding programs who address retention, mentorship, promotion, leadership, safety, and community building for journalists of color. This is the only way to move from surface-level representation to centering equity and justice in journalism. 

Some organizations we currently fund that seek to build and share power with traditionally excluded journalists include: 

  • The Ida B. Wells Society, an organization dedicated to increasing and retaining journalists of color in investigative reporting.
  • Press On, a Southern media collective that catalyzes change and advances justice through the practice of movement journalism through solidarity with oppressed communities that birth social movements. 
  • OpenNews, a community of journalism peers strengthening relationships across organizations to build a more equitable future for journalism.
  • Free Press, whose Media 2070 team is inviting all of us to reimagine the future of journalism with reparations and justice.    

Talented job candidates from Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and women’s colleges across the country are ready to launch their journalism careers. Funding these organizations will provide support to journalists of color to stay in the industry long enough to build power: become editorial decision makers, become hiring managers, and mentor new staff. They are building the structures, culture, and practice that will help become the next generation of newsroom leaders. 

Blog

Tackling Democracy’s Cybersecurity Problem Requires Collective Action

/
August 17, 2021

For several years, Democracy Fund has been pushing for greater platform transparency and working to protect against the harms of digital voter suppression, surveillance advertising, coronavirus misinformation, and harassment online. But the stakes for this work have never been higher.

One in five Americans rely primarily on social media for their political news and information, according to the Pew Research Center. This means a small handful of companies have enormous control over what a broad swath of America sees, reads, and hears. Now that the coronavirus has moved even more of our lives online companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter have more influence than ever before. Yet, we know remarkably little about how these social media platforms operate.   

With dozens of academic researchers working to uncover these elusive answers, it is essential that we fund and support their work despite Facebook’s repeated attempts to block academic research on their platform.

Earlier this month Facebook abruptly shut down the accounts of a group of New York University researchers from Cybersecurity for Democracy, whose Ad Observer browser extension has done pathbreaking work tracking political ads and the spread of misinformation on the social media company’s platform.

In full support of Cybersecurity for Democracy, Democracy Fund today joined with its NetGain Partnership colleagues to release this open letter in support of our grantee, Cybersecurity for Democracy, and the community of independent researchers who study the impacts of social media in our democracy.

The Backstory

For the past three years, a team of researchers at NYU’s Center for Cybersecurity has been studying Facebook’s advertising practices. Last year, the team, led by Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy, deployed a browser extension called Ad Observer that allows users to voluntarily share information with the researchers about ads that Facebook shows them. The opt-in browser extension uses data that has been volunteered by Facebook users and analyzes it in an effort to better understand the 2020 election and other subjects in the public interest. The research has brought to light systemic gaps in the Facebook Ad Library API, identified misinformation in political ads, and improved our understanding of Facebook’s amplification of divisive partisan campaigns. 

Earlier this month, Facebook abruptly shut down Edelson’s and McCoy’s accounts, as well as the account of a lead engineer on the project. This action by Facebook also cut off access to more than two dozen other researchers and journalists who relied on Ad Observer data for their research and reporting, including timely work on COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation. 

As my colleague Paul Waters shared in a deep dive blog on this topic:

“Platforms have strong incentives to remain opaque to public scrutiny. Platforms profit from running ads — some of which are deeply offensive — and by keeping their algorithms secret and hiding data on where ads run they avoid accountability — circumventing advertiser complaints, user protests, and congressional inquiries. Without reliable information on how these massive platforms operate and how their technologies function, there can be no real accountability. When complaints are raised, the companies frequently deny or make changes behind the scenes. Even when platforms admit something has gone wrong, they claim to fix problems without explaining how, which makes it impossible to verify the effectiveness of the “fix.” Moreover, these fixes are often just small changes that only paper over fundamental problems, while leaving the larger structural flaws intact. This trend has been particularly harmful for BIPOC who already face significant barriers to participation in the public square.” 

This latest action by Facebook undermines the independent, public-interest research and journalism that is crucial for the health of our democracy. Research on platform and algorithmic transparency, such as the work led by Cybersecurity for Democracy, is necessary to develop evidence-based policy that is vital to a healthy democracy. 

A Call to Action

Collective action is required to address Facebook’s repeated attempts to curtail journalism and independent, academic research into their business and advertising practices. Along with our NetGain partners, we have called for three immediate remedies:

  1. We ask Facebook to reinstate the accounts of the NYU researchers as a matter of urgency. Researchers and journalists who conduct research that is ethical, protects privacy, and is in the public interest should not face suspension from Facebook or any other platform. 
  2. We call on Facebook to amend its terms of service within the next three months, following up on an August 2018 call to establish a safe harbor for research that is ethical, protects privacy and is in the public interest.  
  3. We urge government and industry leaders to ensure access to platform data for researchers and journalists working in the public interest. 

The foundations who make up the NetGain Partnership share a vision for an open, secure, and equitable internet space where free expression, economic opportunity, knowledge exchange, and civic engagement can thrive. This attempt to impede the efforts of independent researchers is a call for us all to protect that vision, for the good of our communities, and the good of our democracy. 

Read the NetGain Partners’ Open Letter to Facebook 

Blog

Want to support accurate journalism? Fund solidarity reporting. 

/
July 28, 2021

Last summer, solidarity became a national buzzword. Thousands of people declared and demanded solidarity against racism in the wake of police murdering George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Some news organizations swiftly moved beyond the statement by implementing and amplifying solidarity reporting: the practice of going directly to marginalized communities to inform accurate coverage instead of relying on authorities and elites to tell the story. But many news outlets did not go this route, and remain caught between a desire to appear neutrally “balanced” and the growing understanding that mistaking balance for accuracy can promote misinformation with grave repercussions

As journalism funders regularly pledge to support accurate reporting, it’s time to be more specific – and more discerning – about what qualifies as accurate reporting, particularly in coverage of marginalized people.

Journalistic accuracy must be substantive — not surface-level

News organizations often achieve surface-level accuracy by amplifying the words they hear on a police scanner or during a press conference without mistyping or omitting any talking points. The problem is that accurately repeating what someone says doesn’t mean their statements are true: distortions, decontextualized self-validation, and outright lies are common. And as we know from research in the last five years alone, fact-checking after publishing doesn’t easily fix misinformation.

Substantive accuracy, on the other hand, is a hallmark of solidarity reporting and means more than centering institutions of power and people employed by them. It means amplifying the voices of those who live the news every day. These reporting practices represent affected communities first.

Think of it this way: if a reporter were writing a story about injustice affecting the house you live in, who would know the most about it? The answer is likely you. Imagine, though, that the reporter never reaches out to you. Instead, they speak with the city council, police officers, and your landlord or mortgage lender. This story might provide surface-level accuracy through amplifying “expert” voices, but it would lack the substantive accuracy that your perspective, as the most directly affected person, would provide.

Members of marginalized communities don’t need to imagine this scenario. They live it every day when even the best-resourced local news outlets persistently quote credentialed experts, law enforcement, and bureaucrats at the expense of representing the people who are living, struggling, and dying due to the unjust conditions under discussion.

Solidarity journalism prevents misinformation

Surface-level accuracy sets the stage for journalism to amplify misinformation, while substantive accuracy through solidarity practices remedies it.

Let’s consider a recent example: When police murdered George Floyd, the initial report made no mention of a police officer’s knee on his neck. At a surface-level, it is technically true that this report said, “Officers were able to get the suspect into handcuffs and noted he appeared to be suffering medical distress.” It is far from true that this report accounts for how George Floyd died. We know this because of more reliable sources who lived the moment. Four children who witnessed the murder provided the most accurate account of what happened. And in March 2021, in stark and undeniable contrast to the original police report, they provided accurate court testimony about how George Floyd was killed. 

Cases like this make it so clear that when reporters center sources with institutional power and stop there, the public does not get a substantively accurate story. All too often, surface-level reporting further amplifies misinformation. Fortunately, we know that solidarity reporting can address this problem.

Solidarity reporting strengthens substantive accuracy across a range of issues

Any newsroom that covers timely and important issues should provide substantively accurate coverage. Solidarity reporting improves accuracy across a range of these issues and communities, including:

As news organizations promise to learn from their past mistakes, journalism funders can support solidarity reporting as a way to help news outlets move beyond statements and apologies and toward achieving greater substantive accuracy.

A call for funders: Supporting accurate reporting means supporting solidarity reporting

Funders have the power to accelerate a trajectory toward a more accurate, ethical, and equitable news ecosystem. As more foundations invest in a growing range of news outlets, news initiatives, and news partnerships, solidarity reporting offers a set of criteria that funders can use to make – and justify – their decisions. 

Next time you’re reviewing a proposal, ask yourself these three questions to understand how or if solidarity is part of the reporting process:

  • Is the project aligned with substantive accuracy in journalism, which means including the perspectives of people directly affected by ongoing injustice?
  • Are the terms, frames, and definitions of the project aligned with affected communities’ self-described needs?
  • In the face of injustice, will leadership and contributors be able to name it and stand against it, or is the project structurally tied to maintaining a façade of neutrality?

A minimal standard of surface-level accuracy in journalism cannot suffice. Such a low standard breeds misinformation about marginalized communities and perpetuates harm against them. It’s time to support solidarity reporting and the substantive accuracy within it to help build a more just future.

Anita Varma, PhD leads the Solidarity Journalism Initiative. She is an incoming assistant professor at UT Austin’s School of Journalism & Media and senior faculty research associate at the Center for Media Engagement. Previously, she was at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (Santa Clara University). The Solidarity Journalism Initiative helps journalists implement solidarity in their reporting on marginalized communities. If you are a journalist or journalism supporter and would like to learn more about Solidarity Journalism, please contact . You can also follow her on Twitter.

Blog

Holding Ourselves Accountable: How Democracy Fund is Supporting Media Equity Now

/
June 16, 2021

Last year, we published “Dear Funders: What Does it Mean to Care About Equity in Journalism?” where we outlined three priorities for foundations seeking to support equitable journalism: investing in journalism created for and by people of color; supporting groups that are building a more equitable industry overall; and closing the resource gaps that philanthropy has helped perpetuate.

This piece went up at the start of one of the most tumultuous times in our country’s history: the rise of COVID-19 and marches for racial justice in the wake of George Floyd’s murder. White-centric and led media struggled to tell these stories from the lens of communities of color, while pushing out reporters of color who were

Following this surge, an unprecedented amount of philanthropic dollars went towards racial equity, as many newsrooms began to grapple with their histories of racism. But it’s now one year later and many funders still struggle to center POC-led organizations, while real progress on equity within newsrooms has yet to materialize.

Righting these wrongs will take incredible amounts of time and money from the field of philanthropy. But doing this work gives us energy and brings us joy. We’re investing in the incredible efforts of leaders of color that are shaping the future of journalism, and we hope you’ll join us. 

Here are some of the things we have been doing: 

In 2020, we increased investments to several partner organizations, including an additional $500,000 to the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund to ensure dollars could go directly to POC-led and serving newsrooms and to address the legal needs of journalists of color. We also provided an additional $100,000 to the Center for Community Media at CUNY to help ensure their media partners across the country had access to critical training and resources.

We increased the flexibility of our grant structures, like removing annual audit requirements, providing more mediums for annual reporting, and moving project grants to general operating (excluding grants with fiscal sponsors or agents). And we committed ourselves to using public platforms, as well as industry events like Media Impact Funders, the United Philanthropy Forum, and Council of New Jersey Grantmakers to highlight mediamakers of color and push our peers to increase their support of them.

And our team is continuing this work in 2021. We’ve committed over $1.5 million dollars to grant amendments and renewals to organizations like the Maynard Institute, Emma Bowen Foundation, and the Asian American Journalists Association, all of which support the growth and leadership of journalists of color while holding the journalism industry accountable for more fair and representative coverage. We’ve also renamed our portfolio “Equitable Journalism” to better reflect our funding priorities and guide future strategy. 

We know this is just the beginning. The violent racism that communities of color have experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic is nothing new. Journalism has too often historically contributed to propping up racialized violence and harms, and philanthropy has persistently underinvested in journalism led by and serving POC communities or divested altogether. We don’t want to continue this legacy of harmful funding practices, and we hope you don’t either. We are collaborating more intentionally across our media grantmaking strategies to ensure equity is at the forefront. And Democracy Fund is working to infuse racial equity across the organization, while continuing to examine how our external grantmaking and internal culture uphold white supremacy. 

We’re calling on our peer funders to join this transformative moment, and share their plans and actions so we can all learn from each other. We look forward to sharing more about how we are increasing our investments in organizations led by and serving communities of color, LGBTQ communities, and other historically marginalized groups, and continuing to work on our internal practices and culture to ensure this support is sustained. 

 

Statement

Democracy Fund Statement on the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees Decision to Deny Tenure to Nikole Hannah-Jones 

May 20, 2021

We call on the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees to reverse its decision to deny Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure. We have funded Hannah-Jones’s work at the Ida B. Wells Society, a project of UNC-Chapel Hill, since 2017. 

Hannah-Jones’s critical reporting on racism and segregation in schools and housing is unimpeachable, and the 1619 Project for which she won a Pulitzer Prize, is a profound contribution to the discussion about American democracy. Over the course of her 20-year career as an investigative journalist, she has epitomized speaking truth to power, in the tradition of Ida B. Wells. 

Hannah-Jones has earned her tenure position as the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media. To deny it to her is to lean into the culture of white supremacy that has plagued U.S. academic institutions for far too long. This decision highlights the very inequities that Hannah-Jones has dedicated her career to revealing.

We urge the University of North Carolina Board of Trustees to reverse their decision and immediately repair the harm that has been done. 

Democracy Fund remains firmly committed to building more equitable journalism in North Carolina, where we have contributed nearly $3 million over the past five years to organizations in the state including the Ida B. Wells Society, the NC Local News Lab Fund, PressOn, and Free Press’s Charlotte News Voices. 

Democracy Fund
1200 17th Street NW Suite 300,
Washington, DC 20036