Here’s What Hyperlocal Publishers Should Know.

A new report circulating in journalism and philanthropy circles argues that the future of local news may depend less on funding individual newsrooms and more on investing in shared systems that support the entire field.

The report—Rebuilding Local Journalism at Scale, written by Elizabeth Hansen Shapiro and based on hundreds of proposals submitted to the Press Forward infrastructure funding process—analyzes how philanthropy might strengthen local journalism across the United States.

For hyperlocal publishers, especially those serving rural, suburban, and under-resourced communities, the report contains both opportunity and reason for caution.

Here’s what you should know.

The Big Shift: From Funding Newsrooms to Funding Infrastructure

Over the past decade, philanthropy has helped launch hundreds of nonprofit and independent local newsrooms. Since 2009, the top 25 journalism funders alone have invested more than $38 billion in over 47,000 grantees, according to Media Impact Funders. Many of those organizations are doing important work in their communities.

But the report argues that the next phase of rebuilding local journalism should focus more on field-level infrastructure—systems that support many news organizations at once.

That infrastructure could include things like:

• publishing platforms and technology
• shared fundraising or membership tools
• training and leadership programs
• audience development systems
• legal, HR, and financial services
• collaborative reporting networks
• distribution platforms
  

The idea is simple: instead of funding hundreds of individual projects, philanthropy might invest in systems that help many organizations operate more effectively.

What That Could Mean for Hyperlocal Newsrooms

If this shift happens, hyperlocal publishers may see fewer direct grants to individual newsrooms and more funding directed toward organizations that serve the field as a whole.

That doesn’t necessarily mean less support overall—but it does mean support might come indirectly.

Instead of receiving a grant, a newsroom might gain access to:

• shared technology tools
• collaborative reporting projects
• fundraising infrastructure
• business and operational support
• training programs
• audience engagement systems

For small newsrooms with limited resources, this could potentially lower costs and reduce administrative burdens.

The Report Also Identifies a Major Problem: Visibility Bias

One of the report’s most important findings is that nonprofit local news organizations are geographically concentrated in major philanthropic hubs.

That means places like New York, Washington, D.C., California, Boston, and Chicago have far more nonprofit news activity than many other parts of the country.

This pattern reflects where philanthropic networks already exist. But it creates a problem: the communities most in need of local news support are often the least visible in the networks where funding decisions get made.

For publishers working in rural areas, suburbs, small towns, and other under-resourced communities, this dynamic will likely feel familiar.

In my own work across the local news ecosystem, I’ve seen firsthand how some of the most innovative journalism is happening in small, community-rooted outlets that rarely appear in national conversations. Publishers like Black by God in West Virginia or Baltimore Beat are deeply embedded in the communities they serve. They produce news alongside their audiences, not just for them. They experiment with engagement and revenue strategies born out of necessity—approaches that many larger media organizations have yet to imagine. 

As philanthropy invests in shared infrastructure, one simple question should guide those decisions: Will these systems actually help newsrooms like these? It is far easier to build infrastructure that scales upward to serve large organizations than it is to scale downward to meet the realities of small, hyperlocal publishers. If the goal is to strengthen the entire ecosystem, these outlets should be the starting point, not an afterthought.

The report itself acknowledges this structural dynamic, noting that the geography of philanthropic networks strongly shapes which organizations appear in funding proposals—and which solutions ultimately attract attention from national funders.

Why Intermediaries May Play a Bigger Role

To address these visibility gaps, the report suggests that intermediaries—organizations that connect funders, infrastructure providers, and local publishers—may become increasingly important.

But the report also makes an important distinction.

Some intermediaries:

• reduce friction
• expand access to resources
• connect local publishers to funding and infrastructure
• help smaller organizations participate in national initiatives

Others may simply add another layer of administration without delivering real value to newsrooms.

For hyperlocal publishers, the key question will be whether intermediaries actually expand opportunity or simply redirect resources.

Another Theme: The Push for “Scale”

The report argues that philanthropy needs to identify solutions that can reach large numbers of news organizations.

In other words, funders want to support systems that can scale.

That could mean:

• regional newsroom networks
• shared publishing platforms
• collaborative reporting hubs
• umbrella organizations that support multiple outlets

The goal is to strengthen the entire ecosystem rather than supporting isolated experiments.

But the idea of scale raises an important question: what kind of scale actually benefits local communities?

Historically, media consolidation often led to fewer independent local voices. If infrastructure strategies aren’t designed carefully, some publishers worry that similar dynamics could emerge again.

What Hyperlocal Publishers Should Watch For

If infrastructure becomes a central strategy for rebuilding local journalism, publishers should pay close attention to how those systems are designed.

Important questions include:

1. Does this infrastructure actually solve problems local publishers face? Tools and systems designed for large nonprofit newsrooms may not work well for smaller organizations with limited staff.
2. Are rural, suburban, and under-resourced communities included in decision-making? If infrastructure is designed primarily in major media markets, it may overlook the realities of other communities.
3. Will smaller outlets be able to access and afford these systems? Even helpful tools can become barriers if participation requires significant fees or technical capacity.
4. Does participation strengthen local independence? Infrastructure should support local journalism—not replace it.

What’s Potentially Good News for Hyperlocal Publishers

Despite these concerns, the report also contains encouraging signals.

It explicitly recognizes that the communities with the greatest need for local journalism often have the least visibility in philanthropic networks.

Acknowledging that gap is an important first step toward addressing it.

The report also emphasizes that effective infrastructure should expand reach and reduce barriers for publishers across different regions—not just serve organizations already well connected to national funding networks.

The Bottom Line

The conversation about rebuilding local journalism is entering a new phase.

After years of experimentation funding individual newsrooms, philanthropy is beginning to ask a different question:

What systems can support the entire field?

For hyperlocal publishers, the answer to that question will matter enormously.

If infrastructure investments are designed with local newsrooms in mind—especially those serving rural, suburban, and under-resourced communities—they could help strengthen the entire ecosystem.

But if those systems are built without input from the publishers they are meant to serve, they risk reinforcing the same visibility gaps and funding inequities that the field is now trying to solve.

As this next phase unfolds, hyperlocal publishers will need to remain engaged in the conversation—and ensure that the future of local journalism includes the communities they serve.