Comments on: The Case For Nonprofit Journalism?

By: Amy Kincaid

Amy Kincaid — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 14:50:07 +0000

Consider the rules of the nonprofit business model–the rules that are completely different from a for-profit business model (courtesy Nonprofit Finance Fund).

Each of the following is true for businesses. FALSE for nonprofits:

Cash is “liquid.”
Price is determined by cost, consumer, competition.
The consumer buys the product.
Growth must eventually generate profits or the
business fails.
Investment in infrastructure is seen as necessary;
overhead is a regular cost of business.
Profits drop to the bottom line, are used in the
business, and/or get distributed to shareholders.

Interesting idea about journalism taking on the nonprofit model. But the implications of moving over will not make it easier. These rules are so standard, so self-evident, so understood as truths in business. But they are absolutely the opposite in nonprofit finance. It’s pretty hard for anyone who hasn’t “lived” the very weird! nonprofit rules to truly understand what this sort of solution might mean (board members through the years come to mind). So while this idea is potentially promising, this isn’t an easy fix!

By: bradrourke

bradrourke — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:07:21 +0000

Ben, that’s an excellent point about the traction. I think there is an important distinction to be made between news gathering and news delivery. It may be that the organizational (and individual) skills required for good newsgathering are not at all the same as the skills, capacities, and sensibilities required for good news delivery.

By: Ben Shute

Ben Shute — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:48:06 +0000

Good piece. Thanks. Of coure Pro Publica (and other nonprofit investigative journalism shops) are supported, at least in part, by foundations.
There are pros and cons to nonprofit ownership of newspapers, and although the idea that a nonprofit newspaper might be fully endowed, as has been suggested, is impractical, the mixed funding streams that NPR and other nonprofit media have developed could be adapted to journalism.
It seems to me that, as Pro Publica and others are demonstrating, it is possible to “do” journalism from a nonprofit base. However, the successful delivery of the product is still a problem — print on paper, broadcast, or online. I’m not sure the stories get the traction that they deserve and that we, as citizens, need.

By: Leo Dewey

Leo Dewey — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:38:00 +0000

This is a very interesting mental exercise, but I can understand why you would be uncertain about committing to the notion of philanthropic foundations “buying into” the newspaper business. The construct you describe is replete with uncertainties and riddled with “givens” which, at best, are only assumptions. I’m just old enough to remember people making the same arguments about radio when television became widely popular. However, here we are sixty years later still listen to our radios. My belief is that the newspaper industry is not dying but is in a state of transitional flux. Once the transition is made and market shares redistributed, I think we’ll still be able to read our newspapers, and “journalism” will have found its new home(s).

I enjoyed your essay, Brad. Well worth the read.

By: Links: 12 August 2009

Links: 12 August 2009 — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 21:31:20 +0000

[...] The Case For Nonprofit Journalism? [Brad Rourke's Blog] [...]

By: Jennifer Leslie

Jennifer Leslie — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:48:53 +0000

I would say that the job of a great editor is to know what the people have a right to know and how to finance a publication without compromising it’s ethics. And that, while both news and journalism can be seen as two different things with far-reaching extremes, they have quite a middle-ground of overlap. This is where competitiveness in the free-market comes into play, where journalism (even if only some)is forced to report the news in the most unbiased way, while maintaining a human touch. This requires a true talent.

As for the nonprofit, media outlets already exist, right? Some do better then others and there are definitely people/businesses that find it to be a healthy investment; however, I fear that going extreme in any direction is a move. A risk of losing too many on the “other side”…

By: bradrourke

bradrourke — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:50:44 +0000

Thanks, Josh and Aaron. I agree that eventually print editions will start reverse publishing FROM online more and more. (Many print editions already do that with some advice columns, taking an online chat and turning it into the week’s column a couple of days later.)

Aaron, I — like Steve — am not entirely sure I am sold on the idea, I was trying to make a good case. I am sort of convincing myself, but I still have a few misgivings . . . .

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:47:12 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of nonprofit media and have been pitching it to my journalist friends (none of whom actually own a newspaper though, so it’s not much help). But isn’t the St. Petersburg newspaper a non-profit owned by the Poynter Institute? And isn’t it struggling, too? I don’t have any more details, but I’m definitely curious.

My biggest frustration with media today is that newspapers, TV stations, etc. are mostly owned by big corporations who are beholden to stockholders and their own executives’ big salaries. So media cut staff, cut or even eliminate investigative reporting, cut the newshole all to meet the bottom line. Moving to a nonprofit system eliminates that issue and leaves media to focus on their communities, which is where they should be focusing anyway.

My former editor, Steven Smith, ponders similar issues on his blog, http://www.stillanewspaperman.com. We have discussed this nonprofit idea before, but he isn’t sold on it.

By: Joshua Karp

Joshua Karp — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:02:02 +0000

Brad… I enjoy your thoughts on the difference between news and journalism – I would describe it as the difference between news and information. News I can get anywhere, it’s a commodity, but journalism – information – is specific and (the best of it is) unique.

There will always be a need for print as a medium. The “message” defines the value of the medium. If Roger Ebert only printed his movie reviews in the paper, would he eventually become irrelevant? Or would movie buffs buy that day’s paper to read what Roger Ebert has to say? I recently recommended to the Chicago Sun-Times that they make a dramatic reduction to the content they put on their web site in order to drive readers to the print edition… maybe just tease the reader online and push them to print where ad rates are substantially higher. They titled their head, and went, “huh?”

I also suggested that they give ads away for free, but to include a bit.ly link with each one. Instead of $2,000 for a quarter page ad, the advertiser would need to pay $25.00 per bit.ly link entry, up to a cap of $3,000.00.

I recently tried to start a new print newspaper in Chicago comprised entirely of blogs (read: information, or (a casually defined version of) journalism) called The Printed Blog. We ultimately did not succeed, but the reasons were of our own making. The model was sound. We had amazing content, world-class photography, syndicated content from Yelp, Eventful and others, 10,000 people in our various social networks, full global recognition in a matter of a few months, and we were successful at selling ads in a hyper local model. AND, most importantly, we could have been wildly profitable, even with printing and manual distribution.

The reason we didn’t succeed were firmly of our own making, but the model was sound. I can basically guarantee you that surviving print newspapers will soon be “reverse publishing” bloggers.

Anyway, nice comments, and I’m going to start following your work.

Josh
Founder and Publisher
The Printed Blog