For the past 25 years, there have been two primary ways to finance the growth of local news growth: private equity and foundation grant-making. The first, of course, has fed the consolidation of newspaper chains that actually worsened the decline of local reporting. Thanks for nothing.

Increased philanthropy has been tremendously important, but at this point there are not enough philanthropic dollars by themselves to get where we need to be.

What’s been missing is anything in between those poles — options like low-interest loans, “concessionary lending,” loan guarantees, “catalytic investing,” or “social impact investing.” Basically, loans with a public interest purpose and style.

Creative lending approaches for media have worked well in Europe (via the Media Development Investment Fund), and in the U.S., they’ve been used in other areas, such as low-income housing, health care, and climate. Experiments are afoot to try these approaches in local news. The National Community Reinvestment Fund has created a “media resilience” fund with URL Media and Rebuild Local News. Several major foundations are quietly working up concepts for plans.

In the past, this approach has been treated skeptically by both the philanthropic and social impact investment worlds. Those that focus on “double bottom line” investing would want media loans that would perform as well as other investments, which isn’t plausible in the local news world. Others have understandably feared that loading revenue-anemic companies with debt could make matters worse.

But foundations realize they simply don’t have enough money to fully finance the local news revival. And, more important, it’s now become clearer that there are steps that can actually help local news become more sustainable (and not merely more debt ridden): hiring people who grow revenue (ad sellers, audience revenue mavens, development hustlers); helping with cash flow in cases when an advertiser check is coming but not for several months (e.g., government contracts); creating new product lines that are more monetizable; financing mergers between nonprofits that make two strugglers into one viable organization.

If the loans are for lower interest rates, come with technical assistance support, or have flexible repayment terms, they can help news organizations increase their revenue and audience. This isn’t for every news organization, and lenders need to be hard-ass: They should still only support news organizations with clear plans for how to use the money to improve economic sustainability.

If they do that, the field will increasingly see that “catalytic lending” can extend philanthropic impact — where repayment, even partial repayment, increases what funders can deploy over time.

There may be an interesting public policy twist. The government provides loan guarantees to help “de-risk” lending for veterans, small businesses, and farmers. Why not local news? In Alabama, the Tuskegee News was recently saved when the local economic development authority provided a loan guarantee on the building’s mortgage. As a government action, providing loan guarantees could have real bipartisan appeal as a First Amendment-friendly way of supporting local news.

Some of the current laws that are helping local news outlets could turbo-charge these financial plans. Laws enacted in six states will provide $80 million to local newsrooms in 2026, including in Illinois, which provides refundable tax credits for local news outlets that retain or hire local reporters. If such credits became big and predictable, local news outlets could borrow against future credits.

These kinds of stories may not bring a tear to the eye or win Pulitzers, but local news won’t be revived without more attention to creative financing. This will dramatically increase the impact of philanthropic dollars and make it more likely that local news outlets will develop enduring revenue streams — and that communities get the coverage they need.