Ricochet launched on October 2, 2014, with a lofty goal: to build a model of journalism that serves public instead of corporate interests. Just over a year later Ricochet is still around, and while it’s nowhere near accomplishing all of its goals, it’s a valuable addition to the Canadian media landscape.

The publication is comprised of a French and an English edition (both with editorial independence) that strives to “illuminate the cultural and political diversity in Canada.” Ricochet largely publishes adversarial content, with editor and co-founder Ethan Cox noting in a 2014 Globe and Mail article that, “I’ve always felt that objectivity is a bit of an illusion, and that readers are better served by a media that wears its biases on its sleeve.”

One of Ricochet’s much-publicized defining features is the crowdfunded finance model, which is essential to the publication’s overall survival and ability to avoid pandering to corporate interests. This is a worthy goal to have, especially as sponsored content continues to encroach on Canadian media that is owned by an ever-shrinking group of people.

Cox says, “If people want public-interest journalism in this country, then they need to be willing to pay for it,” and so far over 1,300 people have. These Ricochet “members” contribute between $5 and $10 a month, supplementing an initial crowdfunding effort started before the publication’s 2014 launch that raised $83,000.

This mixed finance model has kept Ricochet alive, and allowed the publication to pay all journalists writing news and feature articles. [Full disclosure: I had an article published in Ricochet in January and was paid 20 cents a word].

Ricochet does not have enough funds to pay any of its editors, who all work on a volunteer basis. This is ultimately unsustainable, according to Cox, and has resulted in Ricochet putting out less investigative work than he’d like because these “stories require significant editorial infrastructure and capacity.”

This is unfortunate, because hard-hitting investigative stories are one of the main ways Ricochet founders intended to separate the publication from the mainstream media it rightfully criticizes as complacent.

“Mainstream media are often guilty of limiting the spectrum of acceptable opinion,” according to Cox, “and I think that when the media become defenders of the status quo, rather than agitators for change, that’s bad for our democracy.”

Cox says he hopes Ricochet’s presence has pushed these mainstream publications to be more open to ideas outside the status quo, citing a need for ideological diversity.

This is a worthy goal to have, and some significant measures have been taken at Ricochet in an attempt to ensure it is met. The most important effort is the Indigenous Reporting Fund. This fund is dedicated to producing “investigations, news articles, columns and opinion pieces” from “Indigenous voices who often struggle to be heard in the mainstream.” Cox also notes the fund is “fully autonomous and managed by experienced Indigenous women editors.” Ricochet crowdfunded over $16,000 in August to support the Indigenous Reporting Fund.

In the journalism landscape where short annual lectures teaching employees how to speak about Indigenous people is considered sufficient, providing Indigenous people with a platform to speak for themselves is invaluable.

The publication’s adversarial approach to journalism is also a significant departure from the more traditional notions of objectivity espoused by mainstream publications. One of Ricochet’s few glaring errors in its first year of existence, however, cast a shadow for some on the claim that the publication wears its biases on its sleeve, a necessary component of adversarial journalism.

The error came in an August 2015 profile of significant battleground ridings that was written by a former New Democratic Party volunteer,* without any acknowledgement of the fact that the writer had previously worked directly for one of the candidates he wrote on. A disclaimer was promptly added to the post when Ricochet editors discovered the staffer’s involvement.

As such, it seems like discounting the publication’s claims to being open about its biases off this error alone is a definite overreaction.

Still, despite some worthwhile features, Ricochet has not yet forced mainstream publications to challenge the status quo as Cox hopes for. This is mainly because the publication does not yet have the funds, the following (just over 1.3 million page views in a year, under 9,000 followers on Twitter and 14,000 “Likes” on Facebook) or the influence to make it a reality.

The publication is still young, however, and there’s little reason to count it out just yet.

*This post originally stated that the writer was a staffer, not a volunteer. The RRJ regrets this error. 

Ricochet is the latest attempt to unite crowdfunding and journalism in Canada.

On October 2, Ricochet launched as an independent, interactive, investigative and not-for-profit online news outlet with a promise to embrace Canadian identity by producing bilingual content. Their campaign video was posted on Indiegogo on May 20 and managed to raise an impressive $82, 945 from 1,548 funders within one month. The ambitious video could be the reason for their crowdfunding success. In it, Ricochet cofounders and contributors label mainstream news as sensationalistic and conformist. They offer their utopian journalistic model as a replacement, while asking for money to produce it.

So far, Ricochet is living up to its promises. They advertised accessibility and delivered a simple web design that adapts to all devices. They promised a diverse range of topics and voices and delivered with in-depth stories that range from “Canada’s education apartheid” to “Female DJs tackle gender bias.” Readers can easily switch between English and French versions of the site and the content changes depend on what language they’re reading in. For example, on October 6, the English feature story focused on the environment, while the French homepage featured politics with focus on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.

Ricochet was born out of the founders’ frustrations with how English news organizations covered the Quebec student strike and protests in 2012. In an interview with CBC, cofounder and editor Ethan Cox calls the current state of mainstream news a “cannibalistic system” dependent on unpaid or underpaid journalists. Ironically, Cox and 10 other Ricochet editors will not be paid. Divided between Ricochet’s Vancouver and Montreal offices, the editors will be volunteering their time and paying the bills with various communications jobs. All funding will go towards web development and paying their writers. Their tentative plan is to pay $100 for standard pieces, and anywhere from $500 to $1,000 for investigative pieces. It’s a noble model, but one that may be unrealistic. If Ricochet gains in popularity, it could be a race to whether the funding or patience of the volunteer editors will run out faster.

With a paid membership, they promise readers the chance to pitch their own story ideas (the application won’t available until November) and the ability to embed videos and photos into the comment section—just in case a web troll would rather flip the bird instead of write out their hateful ramble. They also vaguely tempt readers into membership with “exclusive offers,” without giving any idea of what they are.

Why would a reader pay $5 a month when articles are free to non-subscribers? And why would someone donate $300 for a lifetime subscription with no guarantee that Ricochet will still be producing content by the end of year? A belief in the vision is one thing, but consistently opening up wallets is another.

Incentives like a mention on “The Wall” or a free T-shirt may not be enough for those who are happy getting their daily news from any other free outlet. Buyouts and budget cuts don’t affect those who only have time to briefly scan the headlines while gulping down their morning coffee. Ricochet may only appeal to Canadians who regularly read investigative journalism and enjoy pieces of analysis.

I would like to say that Ricochet has the potential to compete with powerhouses like CBC and Radio-Canada. But realistically, their model doesn’t seem sustainable.