How not to win a journalism grant


Note: I was meaning to talk about this at the 2016 edition of the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, but had to cancel at short notice. Wilfried Rütten, Director of the European Journalism Centre (EJC) kindly agreed to fill my slot, and with great success. At the risk of duplicating some information, I summarise my thoughts below.

Grants for journalists are few and far between. Most are for relatively small amounts that often, however, make a world of difference. If you can afford the €1.500 it takes actually to visit the place you are reporting on, your project might become viable in the first place, and readers will surely notice your first-hand experience. A precious few grant programmes offer substantially higher amounts, such as Innovation in Development Reporting (Disclaimer: I am working for that project’s backoffice). Big grants can fund entire teams of journalists, photographers, experts, graphic designers, data specialists, coders, and so on, while they tackle an ambitious investigation that today’s ailing news outlets might never have commissioned on their own.

I am personally involved in the grants business from different perspectives: As a grant writer myself, as a grant consultant, and occasionally as a member of a pre-jury. In these capacities, I have noticed nine common mistakes that are made by applicants, and especially by applicants from the journalism community. This is, in my observation, because journalists – in contrast to, for instance, NGOs – are not usually in the frame of mind for grants. They pitch their story to an editor, the editor says “no” or “yes”, and they get to work. But drafting a grant application does not only require good advance planning, but also a somewhat complex technique. In a way, grant applications are pitches on steroids.

So here is my list of mistakes that tend to kill many fledgling journalistic projects before they even stand a chance. For the sake of clarity, I may be exaggerating a little, but really: only a little.

  1. Not reading and understanding the terms and conditions

It is really astonishing how many grant proposals express only a rather fleeting knowledge of the framework conditions of the programme they are applying for. Juries notice and discard such proposals immediately, even if they have merit in themselves. Because why should a programme that calls for, say, coverage of the latest developments in bioscience fund a reportage about the refugee crisis?

Therefore, I recommend to read the call text not only twice, but as often as you can – you will be surprised by what kind of nuance you only discover once you have familiarised yourself with it very thoroughly. This is closely connected with

  1. Missing the specific topic

Even if proposals have got the general theme right, they often still manage narrowly to miss what the grants programme is really about. If the call is, for instance, about development cooperation with the world’s least developed countries, then please do not come around with a proposal on rural development issues in East Germany. This may seem obvious, but I am actually speaking from experience here.

Accordingly, pay attention to the finer points of the call as well, and please do what you have learned as a journalist: perform some research so you really understand the funder’s fine print. But even if you do that, there is

  1. Not being specific enough

Many proposals manage to hit the topic and conditions, but then fail because they do not develop a sufficiently concrete idea about what kind of specific story they would like to tell. A grant proposal about investigating corruption may be fine as such, but juries like to see that you have a particular case in your sights and will not merely run around researching until, by chance, you come across an interesting case.

Hence, do your homework before applying – perform some initial research, verify that your hunches are correct, explore whether you can really develop the sources you need to prove the story to your audience. And yet, even this is not enough, because you might be

  1. Not explaining yourself properly

A lot of story ideas are brilliant, viable, and a perfect match for the grants programme they are applying to. However, a substantial amount of proposals do not manage to bring their brilliance across, which seems surprising for journalists – after all, precisely that is supposed to be their job. But it shows when the pitch was cobbled together quickly and half-heartedly, or does not bother to go into enough detail.

Assume that the jury does not know anything about the topic you are proposing, even as usually the opposite is true. The assumption of your audience’s ignorance will help you explain and motivate your pitch much more credibly. But then lurks the next pitfall:

  1. Not reassuring the donor that you can actually do it

There are many grant applications which master all the abovementioned steps, yet eventually fail to demonstrate the appropriate competences and skills to implement the project. Sometimes this is neglect, sometimes just naiveté. If you have never before been to Africa, the jury will certainly not let you travel to Congo – both because they are concerned about your welfare, and because they do not want to lose the grant money.

Competence can be proven in many ways. If you are an experienced reporter, hand in a detailed CV with verifiable references. If you lack the specific experience, show that you have researched the challenges well and developed reasonable tactics to meet them.

  1. Suggest that you are grant-eating

Some grant proposals founder on credibility, even if the story idea is well developed. This happens in particular when there is no match between the person or team applying, and the topic. A seasoned sports reporter who all of a sudden aspires to investigate the intricacies of, for instance, nuclear arms proliferation, risks that the jury believes that she is in this only for the money that happens to be available, but not because of passion for the subject.

Usually it is most promising to apply for grants programmes that have a clear relation to your career to date. But if you in fact have developed an entirely new interest, explain why and how that came about. Because otherwise, the jury might feel that you are just

  1. Assuming entitlement

This actually happens especially to the best in the journalism business. They are perhaps already a kind of celebrity on their beat, or they work for a news organisation that everybody knows and respects – or even worse, they work in television. They are used to doors always opening when they come calling, to politicians finding the time to talk to them no matter what. So why should some jury not give them a nice grant?

Of course it works in your favour if you have a good reputation and are widely known as a major opinion maker. And yet, juries tend to appreciate modesty. Carefully make the case for your proposal like everybody else, soberly and fetchingly. And avoid

  1. Submitting a budget that lacks credibility and/or reason

Budgeting is an art form, and journalistic projects are no exception. It is without doubt difficult to anticipate all costs and foresee all the financial issues that might crop up. Mistakes are forgivable. But there are budget proposals that are excessive, where the applicants award themselves salaries in the multiples of what they are usually making, or hope to keep some extra cash by over-pricing items.

Reason does it. Juries have a pretty good idea what journalists typically make, what a trip to an exotic location costs, and for how long you need to be there to report your story properly. Do not try and spend a week on the beach on the funder’s dime.

  1. Puzzling over donor lingo and templates

The final point is perhaps the least obvious one. Many grant makers have very specific ways of working and thinking. They might adhere to the logical framework approach, essentially unravelling projects from their end. Or they expect you correctly to fill in forms that are primarily meant to satisfy the requirements of the tax office or other regulatory authorities they answer to. This may be confusing and quite hard for first-timers.

The easiest way to overcome this is to ask previous grantees for their help – after all, they managed successfully. Find tutorials like this, look closely at the funder’s FAQs, or ask the funder’s experts – more often than not, they are happy to help.

* * *

Not to appear too negative, though. There are a great many really excellent journalism grants proposals out there – many more than any of the existing programmes can ever hope to fund. However, I would insist that the job of the applicant is to make the the jury’s decision-making process as difficult as possible: Make them discuss your pitch seriously, have them weigh it scrupulously. But the above mistakes achieve exactly the opposite.

Permalink for this article:

This post was kindly cross-published by the Global Investigative Journalism Network, and by the International Journalists’ Network. It is also available in Portuguese, Spanish, Turkish, and Arabic. A variant appeared on the European Journalism Centre’s Medium.



, ,