Buongiorno from Bologna, Reader,

I arrived here after attending the yearly journalism festival in Perugia. I’m leaving out the word “international”; read more about that below.

It’s been a wild few days packed with meetings with old and new friends. The beauty of this festival is that journalism expertise fills the streets of the old center, and it’s easy to connect over a coffee or pasta. Last night, I danced my feet off at the 20-year celebration party.

I’m now quite exhausted from all the conversations, and at the same time energized, which is why I want to make sure this newsletter goes out today.

What Perugia made clear

Perugia confirmed that the problem in journalism has a lot to do with leadership. It’s about who is making decisions, from what perspective, and what they consider relevant. Yes, we need innovation, but who decides what innovation is?

There are many smart, well-meaning people around. And at the same time, a lot of the same patterns keep repeating themselves.

You don't need another framework to question your assumptions or find out which systems shape your choices. You need people who can actually take the lead in complex environments and make decisions with awareness of power and context.

And that’s exactly what the upcoming course Leading for Transformation is about.

It’s a space for people who make editorial and strategic decisions, work across contexts, and recognize these gaps in practice.

I’m starting with a small group next week, focused entirely on that layer of leadership, positionality, and decision-making. It’s a practical approach with strong guest speakers.

There are a few spots left! Make sure you join. Scholarships available, too.

Sanne
​

DEEP DIVE

Perugia and the limits of “international” journalism

Why call it international if so much of our ecosystem is missing? t the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, I kept returning to that question. in conversations with media professionals, because wording matters.

“International” suggests a gathering shaped by multiple regions, perspectives, expertise, and epistemologies. In reality, what you see in Perugia is a festival embedded in a Western funding and organized ecosystem, with strong representation from Europe and the US, and far less presence from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and other regions.

That's the structural reality. So, what happens if we simply name it as it is? The Journalism Festival Perugia, and everyone would still know what we mean.

A strong start and then a gap

One of the only panels I attended was “Beyond ‘hubs and spokes’: decolonising journalism support for the world’s majority” (watch on YouTube).

The conversation opened the festival, and moderator Preethi Nallu shared that last year she wanted to use the word “decolonial” and was advised not to because it would offend people. So her attempt this year was extra motivated.

Partners from Report for the World spoke about their experiences. There was a clear effort to think about fair structures and shared infrastructure, but the conversation stayed largely at the level of equitability, and not decolonial thinking as a theory.

It's a pattern in journalism to approach this topic through access and distribution, but avoid engaging with the deeper theories of what applying decolonial thinking actually means. Indigenous journalists have been practicing this for a long time. Where were they in the programming?

And linked to that, if Indigenous communities are central to biodiversity stewardship, the lack of climate change panels was striking, too.

What gets centered

It’s not just the word “international” that starts to feel imprecise. You could also question the word “journalism” because the program leaned heavily toward investigative journalism, journalism under capture, political reporting, AI, and the creator economy. Absolutely important topics, but also topics that journalists in Europe and the US are currently prioritizing.

Often, these are challenges journalists outside the West have been dealing with for much longer. But they are not centered as the ones to share lessons.

There were exceptions, though. Palestinian journalists spoke about their experiences. The film Inside Gaza brought an intensity to a packed cinema, where the scale of the screen made it a physical experience.

There were many other side events, one about the lack of Black journalists in the programming. Freelance journalists, who are underpaid and overworked, while carrying much of our profession’s risks, also noted the lack of attention to their conditions.

A festival cannot satisfy everyone. That’s not the point. The question is, what does it choose to center, and why?

The missing conversation about power

Much of the criticism I heard, also from attendees from Asia and Latin America, was about transparency and the way panels are selected. Why are certain proposals rejected?

Dutch journalist and media entrepreneur Seada Nourhussen shared that when “Black Perugia” tracked participation, most of their proposed panels had been rejected, including one on migration and media. In Italy, at a time of intensified xenophobia and deaths at Europe’s borders.

At the same time, Portuguese media entrepreneur Catarina Carvalho captured her experience:

Both things are true, which makes the lack of transparency harder to ignore.

Journalism holds others accountable: politicians, institutions, people in power, tech bros. But when it comes to our own profession, that mirror is less consistent. It's there, but it easily fades, too. The panel about Hype Literary might be interesting in this context. It was recommended to me, but I haven't watched it yet.

Who gets to be in the room streets?

There are also more basic exclusions. A journalism friend tried to bring an Egyptian colleague to the festival last year. A visa for Italy was not granted, but the communication with the festival also felt unnecessarily dismissive. It made my friend think, do they not care? Or is it outside their perspective?

Walking through the steep cobblestone streets of Perugia, I also kept thinking about colleagues with disabilities. I never see a journalist in a wheelchair. Isn’t that strange?

We know many colleagues navigate ADHD, burnout, and long-term stress. These realities are not part of the visible conversation either.

People can have the best intentions. The question is: what does the structure actually allow you to notice, and what stays out of your view?

The history of "international"

The word “international” has a specific history. It emerges from a world organized into nation-states: inter meaning “between.” It assumes relatively equal participation across countries. That doesn't really work in this festival.
​
In a decolonial reading, “international” often masks uneven power: some nations set agendas, others are included selectively, often through Western frameworks of legitimacy.

So the word is more about how it wants to sound than what it really is. ropping it is not about critique for the sake of critique., but about accuracy. And that's part of the job.

What this asks from leadership

If the festival is part of a Western convening ecosystem, then just say that. Be transparent. If there are limits to who can attend, let people know. If the selection process excludes certain topics or regions, make it visible. It shouldn't be done in a defensive mode because Arianne Ciccone and Chris Potter have done an amazing job in building a community. It's just applying a baseline of transparency that's being asked of others as well.

Because right now, the gap between the language and the reality does the work of obscuring those limits.

When a Western-centered festival is called “international,” it consolidates legitimacy in one place. Funders and media organizations orient themselves accordingly, and this becomes the room that matters.

That, in turn, shapes who gets visibility next year, who gets funded, and whose work is seen as setting the agenda. The consequence is real resource allocation. Other regions are not only underrepresented but structurally deprioritized. Precision in naming doesn’t fix that, but it makes the concentration of power visible.

What to do about FOMO?

If you weren’t in Perugia, don't think you missed everything. It’s absolutely a strong gathering of media professionals, and it's also one node in a much larger ecosystem.

So adjust how you read and think about it. Don’t treat it as The Global Meeting Point For Journalism. It's a Western-centered festival with international participation.

The critique is important, but don’t put all your energy into protesting this one space.

If you are a funder, a newsroom leader, or part of the industry in any other way, make sure to show up elsewhere. Not occasionally, but structurally. Share your calendar. Make your presence predictable beyond Europe and the US. And in your own language, be precise. Call things what they are.

A course for public-facing leaders

See you next week!

Sanne