There is no doubt that Coimisiún na Meán’s decision to allocate €5.7 million in funding to support local government and court reporting is well-intended. The challenges facing local journalism are real, and the decline in court reporting raises legitimate concerns about transparency in our justice system. However, even the best intentions can lead to unintended consequences, and in this case, the long-term effects may do more harm than good.
Trust in the media is already at an all-time low, both in Ireland and globally. A significant reason for this is the perception that journalists are too close to those in power, that they serve as mouthpieces rather than watchdogs. When a regulatory body entirely funded by the state distributes large sums to selected media outlets, it is foreseeable that public skepticism will only deepen. Even if the journalists involved maintain the highest standards of integrity, the mere appearance of state reliance will undermine their credibility.
The goal of ensuring adequate coverage of local government and the courts is admirable. But should this responsibility fall to the taxpayer? If there is genuine public interest in these areas, independent media should be able to sustain such reporting through readership and advertising. Instead, by selectively funding specific publications, the state is making choices about which outlets thrive and which struggle—effectively distorting the market and picking winners and losers. We are often told that the economics of journalism are impossible, but we know it can be done because we’ve done it—Gript funds itself through subscriptions. And, since we are now legally obliged to remind you, you too can support our work by subscribing at this link.
A press that is financially dependent on the state—no matter how indirect or well-intentioned that support may be—will always face questions about its independence. This is not to say that any journalist taking these funds will compromise their integrity, but rather that they will inevitably be seen through the lens of state patronage. This perception is dangerous in a time when trust in institutions is already fragile. It is entirely legitimate for the public to question the impact of this funding. To give one immediately pertinent example, how can these organisations be trusted to hold Coimisiún na Meán to account if issues arise when they are financially reliant on it? Furthermore, will they be willing to critically examine potential issues with the way these funds were distributed or how the selection process was managed, or will they shy away from investigating their own benefactors?
The State has become increasingly preoccupied with combating so-called mis- and disinformation, a concern that has dovetailed neatly with the financial struggles of the media sector. As revenues dwindle, many outlets have found that aligning themselves with this narrative is a convenient way to justify calls for more state support. Yet, rather than bolstering public confidence, these initiatives do the opposite—tying media outlets ever closer to the state and giving people more reason to question their independence. It is inevitable that people will ask: if there were no benefit to the state, why would it be bankrolling these organisations in the first place? Given the dire state of public trust in both politicians and journalists, few will be persuaded by vague assurances that this is being done ‘for the civic good’.
All of this is happening alongside a broader push by major media outlets for state-backed funding models—whether through direct public subsidies or policy changes like the 2023 VAT removal, which effectively served as a financial boost to the industry. Notably, despite this VAT cut, newspaper prices remained unchanged, as highlighted in a report by Gript (link): ‘There has been no sign of any publications reducing their prices, meaning that the reduction is simply being pocketed by media companies rather than passed on to consumers.’ This raises further questions about how much of this state intervention is truly about benefiting the public versus propping up a struggling industry.
If the aim is to strengthen democracy, there must be a broader conversation about how to support journalism without deepening the trust deficit. A free press should be exactly that—free from financial entanglements that cast doubt on its independence. A model that relies on direct state funding, no matter how noble the justification, risks doing more harm than good in the long run.
Ultimately, the question is not just about money, but about trust. How can the public be expected to believe in media that is increasingly dependent on government funding? Even if this funding is deployed with the best of intentions, the optics and practical implications of state-sponsored journalism will only reinforce existing doubts. Ireland needs a press that is robust, independent, and, above all, trusted. We should be wary of any solution that risks eroding that trust further.
At Gript, we have a clear stake in this debate. We have chosen not to seek or accept funding from the Irish state or its proxies, meaning that these schemes actively disadvantage us by subsidizing our competitors with taxpayer money. Yet, our concerns go beyond commercial interests. The real issue is the precedent this sets for journalism as a whole. When financial success hinges on securing government grants rather than producing journalism people want to read, the industry shifts from serving the public to appeasing the state. High-quality reporting and genuine reader support—not bureaucratic favour—should determine which media outlets survive and thrive.