Since 2006, the Schmidt Family Foundation, established by Eric and Wendy Schmidt, has been at the forefront of supporting climate change communication initiatives. Wendy Schmidt, with her background in journalism, recognized the critical role of clear and accurate information in driving meaningful action. One of the Foundation’s key priorities has been to bridge the gap between complex scientific data and accessible public understanding. After extensive discussions with climate experts and scientists, Wendy was drawn to a groundbreaking idea: the creation of a “bridge” institution that could provide the media with independent, reliable and credible scientific information on climate change. This commitment led to the founding of Climate Central, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering journalists and the public with accurate and accessible climate data. Here, we sit down with Joe Sciortino, the Foundation’s executive director, to explore Schmidt’s approach to media grantmaking, the gaps and opportunities in the field of media funding, and the urgent need for more climate media storytelling.
Nina Sachdev, Director of Communications, Media Impact Funders: Let’s talk about the evolution of Schmidt’s media grantmaking strategy. What are some of the major takeaways and insights from supporting this kind of work for nearly 20 years? And how is what you’ve learned informing your current and future media grantmaking strategies?
Joe Sciortino, Executive Director, Schmidt Family Foundation: Between the collapse of newspapers, the rise of social media and streaming, and AI, the media landscape is as fractured and uncertain as ever. Through it all, we’re still holding on to some core media funding values: 1) Take chances; and 2) Believe in the power of good reporting. Throughout our 18 years, we’ve taken risks on new and unproven ideas, and seen them succeed. Media start-ups like Climate Central (mentioned above), the Food and Environment Reporting Network, Civil Eats and Capital B have become important outlets for climate, food systems and issues of high importance to people of color, respectively. We’re excited to see the innovation happening in the nonprofit journalism sector and we will continue to support groups that cover the issues we care about. We’ve also taken chances on filmmakers and have had a good success rate in providing production and distribution support to game-changing documentaries like the Oscar-nominated films Gasland and Virunga, both of which have helped to change the narrative about fossil fuel extraction. While the distribution strategies for films are very unclear at the moment, we believe film still holds a significant place in our media landscape, and has a unique power for narrative change.
What also seems to be evergreen is the power of good investigative and explanatory reporting. Grantees like The Fuller Project and CalMatters are publishing deep investigations on environmental and human rights issues, and they are tracking the impact those stories are having on policies and regulations. We are thrilled with some of the funding we’ve provided to publish explainers on deep-sea mining or to expose corporate greenwashing on issues like plastics and recycling.
Nina: Most funders are supporting media through their issue area(s) and not through a dedicated media portfolio. Can you talk about that approach? How are your media and journalism grants advancing the foundation’s work in various portfolios? Can we hear about a few exemplary grants?
Joe: We’ve centralized the decision-making of our media funding into one cross-functional team, made up of staff across the organization. We wanted to create one community of practice within the Foundation that could accelerate our learning and understanding of the media landscape and facilitate the journalism grantees across themes and geographies to connect and share experiences. The core group works with other program staff to consult on funding ideas and potential grantees.
One example of the unique impact of adding staff from across the Foundation is our new funding strategy around African-led journalism, initiated by a team member from our Human Rights program. In the countries where the program’s grantees work, there isn’t enough comprehensive and impactful reporting on their focus issues of energy, agriculture, and mining. As a result, the harms to communities, the environment and local economies from extractive development projects and policies often go unreported and thus unaddressed. Mainstream media outlets are often state-owned, or run by people with close ties to those in power. Supporting independent nonprofit outlets allows journalists the runway and independence to investigate hard-hitting issues, expose truths and hold power to account. We’re really excited about our first round of grants to groups like The Fourth Estate in Ghana that is doing investigative reporting on the agriculture sector and extractive industries in the country, and Africa Is a County, which is creating a space for African thinkers across the continent to debate their futures and strive towards social justice.
Nina: And how are you measuring the efficacy of these grants? Is there work coming out of the 11th Hour Project or another program area that the foundation considers especially successful in terms of impact?
Joe: We’ve been in conversation with our journalism partners on how they plan for impact and approach impact assessment. For example, we’ve been especially impressed by the way The Fuller Project, Capital B and the Food and Environment Reporting Network (FERN) approach impact in their journalism. All three organizations have broad readership through publishing partnerships, and reach the eyes of local, regional and national policymakers and spur legislative and/or policy change. For example, FERN’s article on child labor in the food sector was instrumental in the introduction of the bicameral Child Labor Exploitation Accountability Act, and Capital B’s article on a highly hazardous HUD-supported low income housing complex played a critical role in the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) cutting funding to the project and rehousing residents to healthier and safer homes.
Nina: As a funder with a particular focus on climate resilience, what specific gaps in climate media coverage does the foundation aim to address through its grantmaking? What are some of the challenges and opportunities you see for climate media in today’s social and political landscape?
Joe: There seems to be a gap in nuanced and expert reporting on climate solutions, particularly when it comes to technological innovations. Without that, a lot of one-sided reporting emerges that extolls the benefits and promises of certain tech solutions, often representing the perspectives and talking points of the developers or investors, failing to include critical analysis and perspectives from those who are critical, skeptical, or in downright opposition. Without that, at times they read like industry PR. This is why we value supporting groups like Civil Eats and Food and Environment Reporting Network, who have deep issue area expertise and networks. For example, we’ve seen the narrative surrounding methane digesters as a climate solution expand over the past four years to include an analysis of community health impacts and a more robust inquiry into the emissions reductions claims of this technology.
We also recognize that community-based organizations need capacity to share these more nuanced narratives regarding climate solutions. One of the ways we increase that capacity is by supporting briefing sessions between our journalism grantees and the partners we support on the program side, to learn from a deep bench of voices working on renewable energy, fighting fossil fuels, agroecology and regenerative agriculture, nature-based solutions, carbon credits, among others.
Nina: As one of the top funders of media and journalism, I’m curious if there have been any recent trends in media grantmaking that you find particularly interesting or important to share with your peers. What insight or advice would you offer a funder who may be interested in making media and journalism grants?
Joe: The current media landscape is so fragmented that it can be daunting for funders to know where to engage. There can be a lot of data you’re bombarded with—audience size, clicks, video playbacks—and it can be hard to discern what is and isn’t working, or which pieces are truly having an impact. Instead of getting consumed by metrics, we rely on outlets that have a strong point of view, like Grist and its environmental reporting, and trust they will figure out the media landscape. Groups like Grist, NPR and others, also prioritize partnerships to expand their content and introduce new voices, such as FERN, which has successfully partnered with both of them. We think this bodes well for long-term survival.
Another trend we’re noticing is that many nonprofit journalism outlets are not just partnering together, but merging together to strengthen their financial viability while also continuing their missions and recognizing shared goals across both parties. Two of our larger and longtime grantees, CalMatters and Mother Jones, merged with The Markup and the Center for Investigative Reporting, respectively, maintaining the purpose and brand of each outlet. We’re also seeing outlets connect more deeply with their communities through in-person events and solutions-oriented journalism.
Nina: We heard recently at our 2024 Media Impact Forum that the climate crisis is in part a storytelling crisis. I take that sentiment to mean that we in the field of media philanthropy need to focus on both the quality and type of content that’s being produced, but also the amount of it. Going beyond grantmaking for a moment, do you think about whether or not the foundation has a role to play in encouraging other funders to recognize the importance of supporting media and journalism that addresses critical social and environmental issues?
Joe: In our opinion, there is no question we need more media and journalism that focuses on climate change. The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, which we’ve supported since 2007, has really insightful data on climate and beliefs in America. There is a clear political divide, with 95% of Liberal Democrats “worried” about climate change, compared to only 20% of Conservative Republicans. However, when asked if they hear about global warming in the media, both groups responded almost identically, with only 35% Liberal Democrats and 33% Conservative Republicans seeing mentions once a week. Given the scale and scope of the problem, these numbers should be much, much higher. Of course, finding ways to depoliticize the issue is also paramount.
With the journalism sector relying more and more on philanthropic funding, the onus falls on us funders to support more media that foregrounds our changing climate. As a funder who has done this since our inception, we certainly can play a bigger role in being an evangelist to other funders. We’re excited to have joined MIF and we look forward to engaging even more.
And, while we share learnings and information around different funding strategies and priorities, I think it can be valuable for us to share more about how we’re funding issue-focused journalism as part of the ecosystem, and supporting networking between our program grantees and journalism grantees, and how we’re seeing that strengthen nuanced coverage and also drive more impact. As we noted above, by centralizing our journalism grantmaking we’re able to create deeper expertise about the sector in our individual program staff that participate, and they can in turn bring that expertise back to their networks.
