tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17363163223492117152024-02-19T06:00:40.062-05:00The Nonprofit RoadNews, research and insight on journalism's emerging business modelJim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.comBlogger156125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-66224212927502528112011-12-07T16:12:00.004-05:002012-02-13T15:56:55.231-05:00Done For NowThis is my last post on this blog -- at least for a while. Two reasons.<br /><br />First, I no longer have the perspective I enjoyed as a student working on my master's in nonprofit management at George Washington University -- I graduated last May, after four years. <br /><br />Although I was in school only part-time, being a student required me to approach my topic with the discipline of academia. It was a lot like being a newspaper reporter again -- a role that demanded the ability to view an issue with a high degree of objectivity. This is the first fall since 2006 that I haven't had a class in which some research paper or project helped me keep that perspective fresh. I never thought I'd say this, but I miss it.<br /><br />Second, the world of nonprofit news has changed dramatically. When I began this blog a couple of years ago, not a lot of people knew how nonprofit news organizations worked, nor could many appreciate the promise they held for public service journalism. That's all different now.<br /><br />Nonprofits are now fully integrated into the journalism business model. Just look at the New York Times and its nonprofit strategy. It now has regional editions in Texas, Chicago and the Bay Area that are supported by nonprofits.<br /><br />And today, I saw evidence of the transformation that was particularly gratifying on a personal level. On the front page of today's Seattle Times, there's a promotion for a <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2016950156_pearlharbor07.html">story</a> about the 70th anniversary of Pearl Harbor Day. That was the result of a content-sharing partnership between AARP and the Washington Post News Service that I brokered. <br /><br />So I'm done -- at least for now. <br /><br />Thanks for reading.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-70732599751938684642011-09-16T09:31:00.005-04:002011-09-18T21:22:30.536-04:00Think Tank "Journalism"I admire <a href="http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/b/robert-bluey">Rob Bluey's </a>determination and initiative. He's a conservative blogger at the conservative <a href="http://www.heritage.org/">Heritage Foundation</a>, and he seems to be intent on revolutionizing or at least reinvigorating journalism at a time when so many of of legacy media have become more preoccupied with the bottom line than the public good.<br /><br />Yesterday, Bluey popped up with <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/15/how-think-tanks-are-reshaping-journalism/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter">another</a> in a series of posts on of discipline he calls "<a href="http://americasfuture.org/doublethink/2011/09/the-new-watchdogs-2/">thinktank journalism</a>." <br /><br />Bluey's case for think tanks getting into the journalism business seems to be that that they cover "stories that are often ignored by other media outlets." And according to Bluey, that means think thanks are "re-shaping" journalism.<br /><br />If only it were that easy. Bluey's plug for "thinktank journalism" seems geared more toward crafting a new pitch to entice Heritage's donors than developing the kind of intellectual rigor that Heritage is known for.<br /><br />My issue with Bluey and those he praises in his posts is twofold. <br /><br />1) What they are producing is investigative, but it certainly isn't journalism. That's not to say it isn't factual -- it just isn't put to the same kind of contextual stress-testing as real journalism.<br /> <br />2) More importantly, many of the conservative-leaning "watchdog" sites commit the sin that journalists hold in greatest contempt -- hypocrisy. They demand transparency of politicians, government and people who receive government benefits, yet they hide the sources of their funding. <br /><br />Worse yet, they encourage readers to donate anonymously, encourage them to take charitable tax deductions and then pretend they they don't receive government support for their work. Those deductions are often referred to as "tax expenditures," and conservatives have been villfying them for years. <br /><br />Bluey and Heritage, to their credit, are open about their point of view. Heritage's mission "is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense." Bluey's very job was conceived as a part of that mission, and that may be important work. But it's certainly not the mission of journalism.<br /><br />To be clear, I'm not arguing here that Heritage -- or any other think tank of any persuasion, for that matter -- should not be digging around government programs and politicians. They can be great, vital sources of information -- and fodder for real journalism. In my days as a Capitol Hill reporter for a daily newspaper, I spent a lot of time in the auditorium at Heritage because I got great material from great thinkers. <br /><br />But neither Bluey nor Heritage nor and other "think tank journalist" should pretend that what they're posting is real journalism. It's not, and it never will be.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-36967105652801312952011-08-31T21:49:00.004-04:002011-09-08T15:31:49.065-04:00ProPublica Joins INNA long time ago, the poet <a href="http://www.online-literature.com/donne/">John Donne</a> wrote that "No man is an island." The same could be said today of nonprofit news organizations, and here's our newest proof point: <a href="http://www.propublica.org/">ProPublica</a> has joined Investigative <a href="http://investigativenewsnetwork.org/">News Network</a>, according to a <a href="http://www.propublica.org/atpropublica/item/propublica-joins-the-investigative-news-network/">release</a> from the two organizations yesterday.<br /><br />This move benefits both parties greatly. For INN, it means the addition of a successful, innovative and high-profile member. But in the long run, it does a lot more for ProPublica: It may well ensure the organization's survival.<br /><br />Founded in 2007, ProPublica was among the first wave of nonprofits news organizations that was formed in response to the crumbling of the newspaper model and its diminishing capacity to support public service journalism. Arguably, it has been the most successful as a journalistic enterprise, having won two Pulitzer Prizes. And it came out of the gate as one of the best funded, thanks to an initial $10 million-per-year commitment from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/magazine/09Sandlers-t.html">Sandler Foundation</a>. ProPublica also had the advantage of being a first mover. <br /><br />But as dozens of other nonprofit news organizations launched, ProPublica began looking like something of an outlier, at least in terms of its business model. It produced world-class journalism, but it struggled with how to diversify its revenue base. For a time, it seemed that ProPublica's idea of revenue diversification was to gain support from a half-dozen foundations instead of one. <br /><br />Meanwhile, dozens of smaller and lower-profile organizations were working to crack the code of sustainability. None has found the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_bullet">silver bullet</a> yet. But that's the whole point of INN: The network's <a href="http://investigativenewsnetwork.org/about/pocantico-declaration">founding members</a> realized early (2009) on that they would be stronger together than apart. <br /><br />Today, it's clear that those who aren't on board will be doomed to a zero-sum competition for resources, and they are more likely to repeat mistakes that others have made before. That's not good for anybody -- especially the foundations that want to see measurable results and could cut off funding in two or three years if they don't see any. <br /><br />ProPublica's move makes Donne's directive all the more apt for nonprofit news organizations: "Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-23634011178825589682011-07-27T19:10:00.006-04:002011-07-28T16:20:11.639-04:00Pew Study's Lack Of ComparisonWhile I was on vacation a couple of weeks ago, the <a href="http://www.journalism.org/">Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism</a> released a groundbreaking new <a href="http://www.journalism.org/node/25847">study</a> that attempted to address the most pervasive criticism of nonprofit news organizations -- that their journalism is biased by their business model.<br /><br />In "Non-Profit News: Assessing a New Landscape in Journalism," Pew asks the right questions -- "Are these sites delivering, as they generally purport to be, independent and disinterested news reporting? Or are some of them more political and ideological in their reporting?" -- and it succeeds in providing us with the first methodical assessment of nonprofits that have launched since 2005. Among other things, it finds that transparency of mission, size of staff and multiplicity of funders are associated with balanced reporting.<br /><br />But where the study falls short is in benchmarking its findings. It looks at a total of 46 sites that purport to produce objective state and/or national news, and it includes seven sites that operate as for-profit business. It then applies a <a href="http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/ideology">content analysis</a> to determine which harbor some kind of ideological bias, and it concludes that 44 percent of the sites in its universe are "ideological."<br /><br />That conclusion led to this unfortunate headline in the Chronicle of Philanthropy: "<a href="http://philanthropy.com/blogs/philanthropytoday/ideology-drives-many-nonprofit-news-sites-study-says/37563?sid=pt&utm_source=pt&utm_medium=en">Ideology Drives Many Nonprofit News Sites, Study Says</a>." What constitutes "many"? We don't know because Pew didn't compare nonprofits to a broader universe of state and national media.<br /><br />Take a look around, and it's not hard to discern the ideological biases that guide many of our media outlets. Plenty of for-profit outlets skew their reporting to capture the loyalties of a particular slice of the market and deliver it to advertisers. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/">Fox News</a> is the obvious example of how to make a profit by introducing ideological bias into news reporting. But it happens in less obvious ways as well. Online newsletters often reflect the biases of the industries and professions they serve, for example. <br /><br />I don't dispute the method Pew used to assess ideology, but I think the analysis would have benefited from having a more rigorous comparison with a broader control group. As a result, we are left to ask: Ideological? Comapred to what?<br /><br />Here's one piece of the analysis that I thought worth cheering. Pew found that news organizations with high levels of transparency and diversity of revenue sources were most balanced in their reporting. From the report: <br /><blockquote>Sites that offered a mixed or balanced political perspective, on the other hand, tended to have multiple funders, more revenue streams, more transparency and more content with a deeper bench of reporters. The six most transparent sites studied, for instance, were among the most balanced in the news they produced. </blockquote> That conclusion confirms what a lot of people in the nonprofit sector have assumed for years, and it lends additional credibility to many of the organizations that have worked hardest to play by the rules of good journalism.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-43339064898893417952011-06-07T16:06:00.005-04:002011-06-07T16:54:12.349-04:00Welcome Aboard, Sandy<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnGqJjPBSTdPJqkNoauwpTB0Tyi1hMV-1yopp1fB24ZS3WNztZCa_x7cuwvvcpsQ8CZnXWzbbSKcCt98K5PhwQ37Bt1OSPpp4Jmg_5uiIdg-mRFf4Ko2k0ZjqXt_3l-FcdpRp3pPQnWZYL/s1600/Rowe_1.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 124px; height: 175px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnGqJjPBSTdPJqkNoauwpTB0Tyi1hMV-1yopp1fB24ZS3WNztZCa_x7cuwvvcpsQ8CZnXWzbbSKcCt98K5PhwQ37Bt1OSPpp4Jmg_5uiIdg-mRFf4Ko2k0ZjqXt_3l-FcdpRp3pPQnWZYL/s200/Rowe_1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5615578295953489266" /></a><br />Last week, <a href="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/articles/sandy-rowe-shorenstein-paper">Sandy Rowe</a>, the editor who hired me at <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/">The Oregonian</a> back in 1994, published a new <a href="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d62_rowe.pdf">paper</a> at the Shorenstein Center about collaborations to support watchdog reporting in an age of limited newsroom resources.<br /><br />Sandy's bottom-line take in "Partners of Necessity: The Case for Collaboration in Local Investigative Reporting" is that the crumbling business models that have underwritten the cost of watchdog/accountability/investigative reporting -- primarily newspapers – will continue to crumble and that "no new business model is within reach."<br /><br />Then, in the next paragraph she writes:<br /><blockquote>Growing evidence suggests that collaborations and partnerships between new and established news organizations, universities and foundations may be the overlooked key for investigative journalism to thrive at the local and state levels. These partnerships, variously and often loosely organized, can share responsibility for content creation, generate wider distribution of stories and spread the substantial cost of accountability journalism.</blockquote>What's this? Sounds like a business model. And if it sounds like a familiar one, it should.<br /><br />This model -- let's call it the collaboration model -- has been around about as long as modern daily journalism. Back in 1846, a handful of newspapers in New York City pooled their resources to pay for news couriers from the Mexican-American War. That collaboration worked quite well, and today it is the nonprofit news organization known as the <a href="http://www.ap.org/pages/about/history/history_first.html">Associated Press</a>. <br /><br />With her paper, Sandy does a fantastic job of describing the emerging landscape of newsgathering collaborations at the national and local level. But she approaches the topic -- understandably -- from the point of view of a newsroom executive, not a publisher. And in doing so, she sells short the potential of the very business model she has documented. <br /><br />Today, smaller scale nonprofit models are being replicated in communities across the nation -- sometimes formally, sometimes informally -- among traditional news outlets, startup newsrooms and universities. Why? Because nonprofits are a highly adaptable business model when traditional models and markets fail. <br /><br />Yes, as Sandy notes, many of the startups that supply original investigative content to these collaborations are highly dependent on foundations, and they probably will be for a while. And yes, many will fail because their leadership comes from the old school of journalism, which shunned the notion of an entrepreneurial newsroom. <br /><br />But "give it away" is more than what Sandy calls a "new value" of investigative journalism. In today's news online news ecosystem, it's also a hard fact of economic life, and with all respect to the New York Times’ effort to erect an online <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-03-17/new-york-times-paywall-will-readers-pay/">pay wall</a>, there’s no for-profit model that can change its impact. For better or worse, as Texas Tribune founder <a href="http://insomniactive.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/content-wants-to-be-ubiquitous/">John Thornton</a> ably argued a couple of years ago, the potential for infinite replication of a news story on the Internet drives its production cost toward zero. So if you’re wondering why there’s not as much great investigative journalism coming out of for-profit enterprises as there used to be, the reason is simple: There’s no money in it. The only way to get it in the quantities we need is to have nonprofits do the work that that our old models used to do – without the profit imperative.<br /> <br />While Sandy cites the successes of nonprofit newsrooms from <a href="http://www.propublica.org/">ProPublica</a> to the <a href="http://www.inewsnetwork.org/">Rocky Mountain Investigative News Network</a>, she overlooks how rapidly the model is evolving -- and the success that some are having in weaning themselves from the cycle of grantmaking. Recently, <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/">Texas Tribune</a> <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-bay-citizen-texas-tribune-to-split-975000-knight-tech-grant/">disclosed</a> that only 51 percent of its revenues come from philanthropy. That bears repeating: 51 percent. Just three years ago, getting under 80 percent would have been regarded as something of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-minute_mile">4-minute-mile</a> mark, deemed impossible to break. But it has happened. <br /><br />And it won’t stop there. New institutions – particularly <a href="http://investigativenewsnetwork.org/">Investigative News Network</a>, the two-year-old umbrella organization for nonprofit news organizations – are looking for ways to bring collaboration to scale. Will they find a silver bullet this year or next? Probably not. But by sharing experience and expertise, they’re going to get a lot closer a lot faster than we might surmise from our observations to date. While some well-known startups are girding for a fight with their brethren over foundation funding, the savvy ones are getting on board the network bandwagon.<br /> <br />A parting thought: It’s easy to forget how much progress has been made so quickly. But I am reminded and highly encouraged by what I see behind Sandy’s paper: Here we have one of journalism’s leading lights wrapping her mind around a model that, after her <a href="http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/">Shorenstein</a> stint, I hope she will embrace by applying herself to a leadership position that might not have existed two or three years ago. I think she could accomplish things that she never imagined. <br /><br />At the very beginning of her paper, Sandy recounts the blow she felt when one of her managing editors and her investigative editor left The Oregonian in 2008 to join ProPublica. That anecdote made me flash back a couple of years earlier, to 2006, when after a great deal of research, I sent Sandy an email from my seat in the D.C. bureau proposing that The Oregonian’s parent, Newhouse newspapers, create a nonprofit to do investigative journalism at the national level. Her reply at the time was a courteous, one-line dismissal saying in essence that she was too busy to look at the proposal and would send it to her next-in-command in the newsroom. Now I have the kind of response I had been hoping for, and I’m glad to see it.<br /><br />Welcome aboard, Sandy.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-16508994243320530922011-05-25T16:06:00.007-04:002011-05-25T20:10:46.031-04:00Test For Nonprofit NewsroomsI've talked a lot in this space about standards and credibility -- and what nonprofit news organizations can or should do to prove they've got what it takes. Along the way, I've looked for various proxies for a Good Housekeeping Seal of approval. The last place (or one of the last) I ever thought I'd find a decent one was at Comcast subsidiary <a href="http://www.nbcuni.com/">NBC Universal</a>. But there it was, in the <a href="http://www.nbcwashington.com/nbc-non-profit-survey/">list of criteria </a>that NBC Universal is seeking in the nonprofit news organizations that its 10 local affiliates will consider partnering with. <br /><br />The list: <br /><br />•Robust local news gathering capabilities <br />•A track record of objectivity and excellence in journalism<br />•Strong journalistic qualifications<br />•Strong organizational management<br />•Strong financial resources capable of sustaining a multi-year relationship<br />•The ability to report on diverse stories and provide diverse viewpoints <br />•Diversity of your organization’s leadership and staff and its ties to the community it serves<br />•The ability to work collegially in a cooperative relationship <br /><br />I think it's great that somebody at NBC Universal (at least that's who I presume drew up the list) took the time to think about what makes a reputable, reliable news organization. But here's the problem: I can't think of more than a handful of nonprofit news organizations across the country that meet all these criteria -- particularly the part about "strong financial resources." <br /><br />In fairness, NBC Universal's San Diego affiliate, <a href="http://www.nbcsandiego.com/">KSND</a>, has been spoiled by its collaborative partnership with <a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/">voiceofsandiego.org</a>, which has been around for several years now and has dedicated patrons. <br /><br />There are a few other nonprofit news organizations that fit the NBC Universal profile. But once you look beyond the nation's biggest cities to the places where traditional newsrooms have taken the biggest hit in recent years the list gets very short very fast. Which begs the question: What exactly is guiding NBC Universal's actions here? A desire to restore local news coverage and perfect a new business model for collaboration? Or, under Comcast's shadow, make a minimal effort to meet terms of the FCC's approval of the merger?<br /><br />NBC Universal says: "The purpose of these arrangements is to work cooperatively in the development and presentation of locally focused news and information on multiple platforms and to enhance diversity of viewpoints and programming in the selected markets." <br /><br />Fine. But the <a href="http://ec2-50-16-80-197.compute-1.amazonaws.com/nonprofitapp.pdf">application</a> itself reads as though it came from an executive in the marketing department. Check out Section VI, Question 1: "Describe the composition of your target audience. Be as specific as possible and include demographic, geographic and psychographic profiles." <br /><br />Psychographic profiles? Really? <br /><br />The last question asks in part "how working with your organization would help us achieve the goals of expanding the availability of locally focused news and information." <br /><br />Most of the nonprofit news organizations I'm familiar with -- mostly members of <a href="http://investigativenewsnetwork.org/">Investigative News Network</a> -- are staffed by deeply dedicated journalists. But most are startups and have budgets less -- often far less -- than $300,000. For them, psychographic studies and other market research is a dream. Meanwhile, Comcast has revenues of $36 billion -- that's billion with a "B" -- and they want to know what nonprofits can do for them?<br /><br />As part of its deal with the FCC, Comcast agreed that it would report on the progress of its nonprofit partnerships every six months for three years. I just hope somebody at the FCC is watching closely what comes of their handiwork.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-90330241190937311532011-05-03T09:34:00.006-04:002011-05-03T11:23:17.986-04:00Final Final ExamFor the past four years, I have made my intellectual home at George Washington University's <a href="http://www.tspppa.gwu.edu/academics/Resources/index.cfm">Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration</a>, pursuing a master's in nonprofit management. Today, I take my last exam, and on May 15 I take on a new title: alumnus.<br /><br />The great thing about going back to school at my advanced age and with one master's under my belt, is that it really didn't matter to anyone except me what I did with my time at GW. Looking back, I think that perspective gave me license to pursue topics and questions th<a href="http://www.jomc.unc.edu/"></a>at I otherwise might have not. It allowed me to help frame <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/06/what-makes-a-nonprofit-news-org-legit-heres-one-six-fold-path/">questions</a> that the emerging nonprofit sector of journalism must answer in order to survive. It also allowed me to have some <a href="http://journalismnonprofit.blogspot.com/2010/12/modest-proposal-for-de-funding-npr.html">fun</a>. <br /><br />The journey began seven years ago, when I read an article by my first graduate school adviser, <a href="http://www.unc.edu/~pmeyer/meyeres.html">Philip Meyer</a>, a man who has been 20 years ahead of his time for half a century. In "Saving Journalism," Phil made a compelling case that we needed to develop new economic models to support what he called "socially responsible journalism" -- the investigative, enterprise and accountability journalism that we need as a society, but aren't always willing to support as individuals. One of the models he suggested was the nonprofit model. <br /><br />I was hooked. The more I looked at nonprofits, the more I became convinced that the structure was closely aligned with the goals of journalism itself. Nonprofits are supposed to be accountable, transparent and focused on public service. Like newspapers, they might not always meet those goals. But what better place to start looking for a solution?<br /><br />Today, I am more convinced than ever that journalism and nonprofit models that support it can be mutually reinforcing institutions -- much like the "virtuous cycle" that made it economically desirable for newspapers to support public service journalism. <br /><br />Now excuse me while I do some last-minute cramming for that econ final.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-59723962423402472032011-04-26T15:51:00.008-04:002011-04-27T19:49:53.431-04:00Advocacy Organizations And JournalismOne of the enduring criticisms of the nonprofit model in journalism is that nonprofit newsrooms are somehow suspect because they are funded in whole or in part by foundations or other organizations that have an advocacy function. This criticism is leveled most often by people who think that a financial transaction -- charging subscriptions or taking advertising -- somehow is the only way of cleansing journalism of bias or subterfuge. <br /><br />So for those who adhere to the transaction-equals-legitimacy view, here's a real kick in the head: As it turns out, one of the finest for-profit newspapers in the country, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/">The Washington Post</a>, has been owned and operated for years by .... an advocacy organization.<br /><br />That news comes to us courtesy of The Washington Post itself -- though you had to look hard to find it. It was deep inside a lengthy <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-trials-of-kaplan-higher-ed-and-the-education-of-the-washington-post-co/2011/03/20/AFsGuUAD_story.html">examination</a> of the Post Co.'s <a href="http://www.kaplan.com/pages/default.aspx">Kaplan educational subsidiary </a>that was published in the April 10 Sunday Business section.<br /><br />The upshot of the story is that the Post Co. developed Kaplan into a cash cow that serendipitously helped the company through hard times in its core newspaper business. An important part of that work involved lobbying Congress to keep financial aid flowing through <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IV">Title IV </a>-- work that Post Co. Chairman <a href="http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=62487&p=irol-govHistBio&ID=27428">Don Graham</a> took on personally. From the article:<br /><br /><blockquote>Graham has taken part in a fierce lobbying campaign by the for-profit education industry. He has visited key members of Congress, written an op-ed article for the Wall Street Journal and hired for The Post Co. high-powered lobbying firms including Akin Gump and Elmendorf Ryan, at a cost of $810,000 in 2010. </blockquote>What's wrong with Graham's advocacy? Absolutely nothing. Because he did it the right way. Graham, like all good publishers, knows the value of maintaining an independent newsroom. So there was no pressure on the newsroom to write about the merits of the for-profit education business.<br /><br />There are all kinds of pressures that can impact a newsroom and its coverage of any given topic. But the key is in how they are managed and, ultimately, deflected. In this regard, Graham did his part by staying out of his newsroom. Should the Post newsroom have taken initiative and done some digging on the for-profit education industry before Kaplan's recruiting practices were cited by regulators? Perhaps. But as so many newsrooms do, the Post took its cues from other societal watchdogs and, eventually executed well. <br /><br />The question that remains: If the Post Co. can advocate for its interests before the government and maintain an award-winning, independent newsroom, why shouldn't other advocacy organizations be trusted to do the same? In the last analysis, every company, foundation, membership group or club advocates for <em>something</em>. The bottom line is, they have to earn that trust -- just as the Post has done.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-16832710798945831262011-03-11T09:36:00.002-05:002011-03-11T09:55:04.218-05:00A Milestone for SustainabilityAs reported by <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-bay-citizen-texas-tribune-to-split-975000-knight-tech-grant/">Paid Content</a> today, <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/">Texas Tribune</a> and <a href="http://www.baycitizen.org/">Bay Citizen</a> are splitting a $975,000 grant from the <a href="http://www.knightfoundation.org/">Knight Foundation</a> to build "a free, open source publishing platform for other news organizations." <br /><br />Great news. But the bigger news was buried a few sentences lower, where we learn that in 2010, philanthropy accounted for just <span style="font-weight:bold;">51 percent </span>of TT's total revenues. That's an enormous leap forward in the race to sustainability. The rest came from membership (11 percent) corporate underwriting (17 percent) and events and specialty publications (21 percent). <br /><br />Not that long ago, philanthropy was considered to be the primary source now and for the foreseeable future; revenue from publications and such were considered something of a bonus. No more. <br /><br />There's no particular ratio of philanthropy that is considered mandatory for nonprofit news organizations. But there is widespread agreement that it has to go lower -- much lower -- in order for these organizations to last for the long haul.<br /><br />Not every nonprofit news organization will move as far as fast as TT. But the effect for the sector as a whole is to move their <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_Line">Mendoza Line</a> considerably farther north.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-15425124455719077162011-02-28T20:39:00.005-05:002011-03-22T15:58:46.499-04:00George Soros' Media ConspiracyBefore the FCC approved Comcast's purchase of NBC Universal earlier this month, it strongly suggested to Comcast that as the new owner of 10 local NBC affiliates, it should invest in partnerships with nonprofit news organizations such as Voice of San Diego. <br /><br />Comcast agreed. But now some conspiracy theorists have cooked up an even better story as to who was behind the deal. Turns out, it was none other than financier/philanthropist George Soros -- or so we are told by conservative blogger <a href="http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/02/03/fcc-orders-nbc-newsrooms-to-partner-with-soros-funded-non-profits/">Andrew Breitbart</a>.<br /><br />He writes: <br /><br /><blockquote>There’s just one problem with this: Voice of San Diego is a member of INN (Investigative News Network) which is funded by the Open Society Institute, the URL of which is “www.soros.org.” Yes, these “non-profit” journalism centers are funded by George Soros. ... People who have an economic interest in the fall of the American economic system ... are completely free to invest in newsrooms but they are not free to cut a deal with the FCC to have the inclusion of their group be a mandate for a merger.<br /></blockquote><br />If it sounds like some important context is missing from this statement, that's because it is. Nothing in the FCC order requires Comcast to partner with INN members or any other specific nonprofit news organization. <br /><br />Breitbart also fails to mention that INN members get funding from a wide range of funders, including libertarian groups. The catch: Contrary to Breitbart's claim, the funders don't get to dictate what is covered and how. It's an important distinction, one that separates journalism from public relations. It's a simple concept, but apparently not one that Breitbart is intellectually capable of making. <br /><br />Consider the source: Breitbart may be best known for doctoring a video of Shirley Sherrod, the former Georgia director for rural development for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to make it appear that she was practicing reverse discrimination against white farmers. Earlier this month, Sherrod <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/14/news/la-pn-shirley-sherrod-andrew-breitbart-20110214">sued</a> Breitbart for defamation.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-67773923534054131162011-01-05T10:10:00.008-05:002011-01-07T16:38:20.140-05:00Comcast's Christmas Present To NonprofitsIt won't come as a surprise to many when, later this month, the <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/">Federal Communications Commission</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122304876.html">approves</a> <a href="http://www.comcast.com/Corporate/About/Corporateinfo/Corporateinfo.html">Comcast</a>'s plan to buy <a href="http://www.nbcuni.com/">NBC Universal</a> and the 10 local affiliates that the network owns.<br /><br />But when the order comes out, look for a late Christmas present from Comcast: As first reported by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/business/media/31comcast.html">The New York Times</a>, the cable giant will lay out an ambitious plan to partner with nonprofit news organizations in at least five communities in which NBC owns stations (see the list below) for at least three years.<br /><br />In a <a href="http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021024634">letter</a> to the FCC sent two days before Christmas, Comcast spelled out some of the details of its plan. The partnerships, Comcast said, would include "story development, sharing of news footage and other content resources, financial support, in-kind contributions, shared use of technical facilities and personnel, on-air opportunities, promotional assistance, and cross-linking/embedding of websites."<br /><br />Notably absent was any formal commitment of financial resources. But those kinds of specifics are likely to be forthcoming, assuming the FCC approves the deal. As Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice told me Tuesday evening: "Look for the order when it comes out. There will probably more detail in there."<br /><br />The partnerships are an attempt to respond to the hollowing out of local TV newsrooms as the broadcast affiliate model continues to crumble. Comcast says it is committed to "hyperlocalism," which it defines as "local news, local public affairs, and other public interest programming," and to providing "free, over-the-air broadcast service" through the 10 NBC-owned affiliates. <br /><br />The letter goes on to explain that the partnerships would be modeled after the working relationship between nonprofit <a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/">voiceofsandiego.org</a> and <a href="http://www.nbcsandiego.com/">KNSD</a>, the NBC-owned affiliate in San Diego. That partnership began as an informal sharing agreement in 2006 and since has grown to include some financial support from KNSD, as <a href="http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/opinion/slop/">Scott Lewis</a>, CEO of voiceofsandiego.org, explains in an <a href="http://investigativenewsnetwork.org/news/making-successful-broadcast-partnership-scott-lewis-voice-san-diego">interview</a> with <a href="http://investigativenewsnetwork.org/">Investigative News Network</a>.<br /><br />Lewis is cautiously optimistic about what could develop. The arrangement with KNSD works so well, he said, because it is built on relationships and trust that have evolved over time. And he notes that while the model cannot be thrust on unwilling or uninterested parties, it certainly can be replicated by those who see its potential.<br /><br />"By investing in it, if it worked, it could be a mutually beneficial innovation," Lewis told me in an email. "Public gets better more in-depth stories and fact checks on local news like the ones we help with. And NBC is able to make it at least pay for itself. And then groups like ours can have it as part of their portfolio of distributors for our content, which is then just one part of our revenue portfolio."<br /><br />Indeed, there is precedent for cooperation beyond San Diego. <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/">Texas Tribune</a>, for example, has cooperated with <a href="http://www.khou.com/">KHOU</a> in Houston, lending out its reporters to discuss public affairs stories. And in the print arena, <a href="http://www.propublica.org/">ProPublica</a> has established relationships with newspapers such as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/">The New York Times</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/">The Washington Post</a>. As Lewis notes, the key for nonprofits is getting partners to see the value in supporting the nonprofit as a community asset.<br /><br />Whether Comcast will commit real resources to the partnerships remains to be seen, but indications are that it will -- if only because it must do so to win FCC approval of its NBC deal. Some data points:<br /><br />* Through its <a href="http://reboot.fcc.gov/futureofmedia">Future of Media</a> initiative, the FCC has expressed a strong interest in fostering new models for underwriting public-affairs journalism.<br />* Notably, it was the FCC -- not Comcast -- that contacted Lewis to learn about the relationship with KNSD.<br />* The Dec. 23 letter from Comcast lays out a detailed plan for reporting to the FCC every six months for three years on how well the partnerships are faring -- not the kind work most companies take on unless they have to.<br /><br />Does it matter whether it took some nudging from the FCC for Comcast to recognize the gem of a partnership it will gain in San Diego? Or that as NBC's new owner, it can help build an innovative, private-sector response to the decline of local public affairs reporting? Not at all. A gift is a gift, regardless of any ulterior motive, and Comcast's offering could well become a model for others to emulate.<br /><br />+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />NBC owned and operated stations: <br />KNBC Los Angeles <br />KNSD San Diego <br />KNTV San Jose <br />KXAS Fort Worth <br />WCAU Philadelphia <br />WMAQ Chicago <br />WNBC New York <br />WRC Washington DC<br />WTVJ Miami <br />WVIT Hartford-New HavenJim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-60875173029492035012010-12-20T13:49:00.000-05:002010-12-20T13:52:04.327-05:00A Modest Proposal For (De-)Funding NPRShortly after the November midterm election, resurgent House Republicans proposed cutting funding to <a href="http://www.npr.org/">National Public Radio</a> -- which incoming Speaker John Boehner called "<a href="http://www.whorunsgov.com/politerati/ink-stained-wretches/republican-calls-to-defund-npr-grow/">a left-wing radio network</a>" -- by forbidding local stations from using government funding to buy NPR programs.<br /><br />It was a ham-fisted approach inspired by NPR's firing of commentator <a href="http://www.idahoreporter.com/">Juan Williams</a> and it <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/17/proposal-defund-npr-wins-gop-anti-government-spending-contest/">went down</a> on Nov. by a vote of 239-171 with lame duck Democrats helping provide the big margin of defeat. No doubt, NPR will be a target again once the new Congress is sworn in. So how can NPR -- which in actuality gets the much of its <a href="http://www.npr.org/about/aboutnpr/publicradiofinances.html">funding</a> through various forms of philanthropy and sponsorship -- make its case for government support? <br /><br />Like Boehner, a lot of Republicans think NPR is biased against them, despite <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/nov/20/entertainment/la-et-onthemedia-20101120">evidence</a> to the contrary. But maybe the real problem is one of constituency. Maybe Republicans don't feel like they have much at stake in sustaining NPR.<br /><br />If that's the case, maybe they're right.<br /><br />NPR doesn't get funding directly from the federal government. Member stations receive grants from the <a href="http://www.cpb.org/">Corporation for Public Broadcasting</a>, the independent nonprofit that distributes federal money to public broadcasters, and that was the pressure point of the Republican proposal. Those stations pay fees to NPR for programming and technical services, which together account for about half of NPR's annual revenues.<br /><br />Each grant is considered on its own merits. But when all those grants are added up by state, a clear pattern emerges: Some states get a lot less than others on a per-capita basis. And if you look at a list of the have-nots of the CPB grant system -- the 20 states that got less than $4 million apiece in 2009 -- the list includes 12 of the 22 states that John McCain won in the 2008 presidential election. In other words, the issue might be that Republican-leaning states don't have as much at stake. So if Republican members of Congress go after NPR, they are unlikely to suffer political consequences.<br /><br />So here's a modest proposal for the incoming Republican House majority: With <a href="http://www.cpb.org/annualreports/2009/images/stories/docs/CPB2009financialsFINAL.pdf">$478.8 million in grants in 2009</a>, CPB represents less than a rounding error in the nation's $1 trillion-plus deficit, and any proposal to de-fund CPB is certain to be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. So why try to kill it? Instead, why not reallocate CPB money in a way that benefits Republicans and their districts? <br /><br />It wouldn't be hard at all. House Republicans could devise a new formula that allocates CPB money to states according to the number of people who voted for McCain in 2008, a big Democratic year. Such a formula would go a long way to help places that arguably could use additional boost for local media. Alabama, for example, would get more than twice as with big funding increases include Mississippi, Oklahoma and South Carolina. And if they don't like the programming that NPR is sending them, they have the leverage of their increased grant money to demand change.<br /><br />I'm not a big fan of government funding of journalism. But the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=1736316322349211715&postID=1108767619036084978">fact of the matter</a> is that government subsidies are everywhere -- from CPB grants to favorable mailing rates and <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/09/government-free-nonprofit-journalism-asterisk-included/">tax deductions</a> for individuals' grants to 501(c)3 organizations such as the<a href="http://www.franklincenterhq.org/"> Franklin Center</a>. If Republicans really want to cut government funding of journalism, they have a lot more work to do than "executing" NPR, as GOP elder statesman <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2010/10/26/nprs_overdue_execution">Pat Buchanan suggests</a>. Until then, they shouldn't kid themselves about what they would accomplish by blocking NPR's public revenue stream.<br /><br />+++++++++++ <br /><br />Public Media "Have-Nots": The 20 states with the lowest CPB grant totals in 2009<br /><br />Rhode Island $774,711 <br />Wyoming $982,129 *<br />Maine $1,582,392 <br />Montana $1,623,470 *<br />South Dakota $1,636,221 *<br />Vermont $1,693,422 <br />West Virginia $2,192,000 *<br />Idaho $2,192,525 *<br />Mississippi $2,225,238 *<br />New Hampshire $2,227,215 <br />Hawaii $2,522,417 <br />Connecticut $2,834,282 <br />Alabama $2,887,913 *<br />Arkansas $2,952,858 *<br />Oklahoma $3,146,341 *<br />Nevada $3,184,697 <br />Kansas $3,356,566 *<br />North Dakota $3,386,257 *<br />South Carolina $3,513,303 *<br /><br />* denotes state won by McCain in 2008 <br /><br />Source: Corporation for Public BroadcastingJim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-50871701297934515432010-12-05T19:40:00.003-05:002010-12-05T21:03:01.121-05:00Andy Alexander's Wake-Up CallNonprofit news organizations got yet another wake-up call Sunday morning from Washington Post Ombudsman <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/25/LI2005032500838.html">Andy Alexander</a>.<br /><br />In his <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/03/AR2010120305527.html">regular column</a> today about an <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/28/AR2010112804379.html">environmental story</a> produced by the <a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/">Center for Public Integrity</a>, he took Post editors to task for publishing the story without telling readers what CPI is and why the Post is publishing its work.<br /><br />More than a dozen readers simply hadn't heard of CPI, Alexander wrote. But one reader he cited by name -- <a href="http://www.venable.com/douglas-h-green/">Douglas H. Green</a> of Washington, D.C. -- took issue with CPI. Green said CPI "often gives a biased, anti-business view on environmental topics," according to Alexander.<br /><br />What's troubling here is that although CPI has a 20-year track record of excellence, and although Alexander's own investigation found that the story had been thoroughly vetted by Post editors, the Post's failure to explain itself and CPI to readers opens it to accusations of bias from readers who have their own interests to protect.<br /><br />As we learn from Alexander's column, Green is a lawyer who represents electric utilities on environmental issues. As it so happens, the story, entitled "Obama administration gives billions in stimulus money without environmental safeguards," names electric utilities that got stimulus money for job-creating projects while also being granted "exemptions from a basic form of environmental oversight."<br /><br />Are these companies among Green's clients? Quite possibly. It might be that Green has some skin in the game and in fact is the party that harbors a biased view of the issue. We don't know because that information isn't disclosed, either.<br /><br />But we do know that accusations of bias -- whether because of funder pressures or reporters' own political views -- remains one of the great, nagging criticisms of nonprofit news organizations. To protect themselves, and indeed, to remain viable news providers for the long haul, they and their publishing partners among legacy media need to do a better job of explaining how the model works and why it benefits readers.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-21961014283747537972010-11-19T10:07:00.002-05:002010-11-19T10:20:58.674-05:00RIP, New Mexico IndependentOn Wednesday, the New Mexico Independent ceased operations after its parent organization, the <a href="http://tainews.org/">American Independent News Network</a>, ran out of money to keep the online publication going. By all accounts, the Independent was aggressive in covering state government, and its presence will be missed.<br /><br />But the lesson here is one of the importance of building a sustainable model -- and how hard that is to achieve. The Independent, which has eight sister publications still operating in states from Colorado to North Carolina, ran out of money in part because it had received grants from supporting foundations on a year-to-year basis, according to David Bennhehaum, president and CEO of the American Independent News Network.<br /><br />Here's part of what he said to the <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque/news/2010/11/18/nm-independent-news-site-shuts-down.html">New Mexico Business Weekly</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote>Bennehaum concedes one problem with the business model was that the creators of the network only secured one-year commitments from foundations for what was a multi-year project. Many of those commitments expired in the first quarter of 2009 — right after the financial meltdown in fall 2008. As a result, many funders were not in a position to recommit.</blockquote><br />Ouch. <br /><br />Could Bennehaum have anticipated the impact of a downturn in the economy? Maybe. Should he have insisted on multi-year commitments such as the rolling, three-year, $10 million-a-year commitment the Sandler Foundation has made to ProPublica? Again, maybe. But had he done so, he probably never would have gotten off the ground.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-40376407082775604752010-09-29T13:29:00.003-04:002010-09-29T17:55:56.689-04:00Nonprofits Among The ONA FinalistsCongrats to the many nonprofits named among the finalists for the Online News Association's <a href="http://journalists.org/news/49830/Finalists-for-the-2010-Online-Journalism-Awards-announced.htm">2010 Online Journalism Awards</a>. They cleared out all competitors in the general excellence, micro- and small-site categories, and placed one of three finalists in each of the medium- and large-site categories. <br /><br />Here are the highlights: <br /><br />General Excellence in Online Journalism, Micro Site<br />* California Watch and the Center for Investigative Reporting<br />* Gotham Gazette<br />* St. Louis Beacon<br /><br />General Excellence in Online Journalism, Small Site<br />* ProPublica<br />* The Texas Tribune | texastribune.org<br />* voiceofsandiego.org<br /><br />General Excellence in Online Journalism, Medium Site<br />* Mother Jones<br /><br />General Excellence in Online Journalism, Large Site<br />* NPR: NPR.ORG<br /><br />Gannett Foundation Award for Innovative Investigative Journalism, Small Site<br />* The Center for Public Integrity: Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice<br />* ProPublica, the New Orleans Times-Picayune and Frontline: Law and Disorder<br />* voiceofsandiego.org: Out of Reach<br /><br />Gannett Foundation Award for Innovative Investigative Journalism, Large Site<br />* NPR, ProPublica, Frontline: Brain Wars: How the Military is Failing the WoundedJim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-37656814416836723662010-09-22T16:34:00.003-04:002010-09-22T16:46:53.698-04:00Do-It-Yourself Nonprofit Journalism<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi30ARYCr4yoauw107_n4Ng2swKPao_98oolKCkbuMy-fiwFJYQvBIeFTAASUBeqFUVsgqsekX024EIeXR-gwPTKlgIoP8L-PJYu62s0Y4nX75LJ0cld1-VCDCJ_b30qaR9uRxpg-ERHmE5/s1600/logo_kcnn.gif"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 25px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi30ARYCr4yoauw107_n4Ng2swKPao_98oolKCkbuMy-fiwFJYQvBIeFTAASUBeqFUVsgqsekX024EIeXR-gwPTKlgIoP8L-PJYu62s0Y4nX75LJ0cld1-VCDCJ_b30qaR9uRxpg-ERHmE5/s200/logo_kcnn.gif" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5519842096319268674" /></a>At last: A comprehensive <a href="http://www.kcnn.org/launching_nonprofit_news_site/introduction/">tool kit</a> for those interested in starting their own nonprofit news sites, courtesy of <a href="http://www.media.illinois.edu/knight/">Brant Houston</a>, <a href="http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/about/staff/">Andy Hall</a> and the <a href="http://www.kcnn.org/site/">Knight Citizen News Network</a>.<br /><br />The best thing about the tool kit may be the advice that comes with it -- things like taking time to assess whether you're really up for all the work and frustration that comes with launching a new enterprise. And some great tips, like finding another 501c3 to act as fiscal agent. <br /><br />Brant and Andy clearly put a lot of time, energy and passion into this project. Kudos for a great job.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-44864017227232636652010-09-01T11:33:00.027-04:002010-09-15T20:35:11.254-04:00Government-free* Nonprofit JournalismHere's a test for nonprofit journalism and its stakeholders. <br /><br />The following sentence comes from the "Contribute" page of a nonprofit journalism organization. What's wrong with it?<br /><blockquote>The (organization) neither accepts nor receives any government or taxpayer-financed grants and relies solely on the generous support of our donors.</blockquote> The answer is ... nothing is wrong.<br /><br />Ha! It was a trick question. The website belongs to organization that claims to help produce independent journalism and doesn't like the idea of government supporting its work. No problem.<br /><br />But in the same breath, the organization informs its potential donors: "Your donation ... is tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law under Internal Revenue Service Code Section 501(c)(3)."<br /><br />Now we have a problem. <br /><br />The organization I am zinging here, the <a href="http://www.franklincenterhq.org/">Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity</a>, says tax deductions aren't the same thing as government support. "Our generous contributors are not funding government support of journalism when they donate to the Franklin Center," <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Stverak#cite_note-8">Jason Stverak</a>, the group's president wrote in an email. (Complete response below.) <br /><br />Economists disagree.<br /><br />Charitable deductions are known within the realm of economics as "<a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/expenditures/budget.cfm">tax expenditures</a>," and according to Stanley Surrey, the former assistant Treasury secretary who coined the term, they're no different than direct government spending. <br /><br />"Whatever their form, these departures from the normative tax structure <span style="font-style:italic;">represent government spending for favored activities or groups</span>, effected through the tax system rather than through direct grants, loans, or other forms of government assistance," Surrey wrote in 1985 with co-author Paul McDaniel (emphasis, mine).<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.heritage.org/">Heritage Foundation</a> offers a similar <a href="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2002/08/A-Glossary-of-Tax-Policy-Terms">definition</a>. It says in part: "The word 'expenditure' is used to highlight the similarity between the use of the tax code to provide advantages to a select group and the more traditional method of giving the group a slice of the federal budget." <br /><br />Last month, I took <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a> to task for promoting itself as a cutting-edge proponent of transparency in government while failing to disclose much of anything about its own funding and expenditures. My <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/07/wikileaks-and-a-failure-of-transparency/">gripe</a>, in a nutshell, was that WikiLeaks' adherence to a double standard undercuts not only its own <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2010/06/what-makes-a-nonprofit-news-org-legit-heres-one-six-fold-path/">credibility</a>, but also that of the entire nonprofit sector in journalism.<br /><br />Like WikiLeaks, the Franklin Center seeks to "advance the cause of transparency in government" while it also withholds information about its own finances. But it slides further down the slippery slope when it condemns the idea of government support for journalism and then makes that condemnation a central selling point in its case for philanthropy -- tax-deductible philanthropy, no less.<br /><br />The Franklin Center isn't alone.<br /><br />In Idaho, the <a href="http://www.idahofreedom.net/node">Idaho Freedom Foundation</a>, publisher of the nonprofit <a href="http://www.idahoreporter.com/about/">Idaho Reporter</a> says this on its "<a href="http://www.idahofreedom.net/support-us">Donate</a>" page: <br /><blockquote>The Idaho Freedom Foundation relies solely on the generosity of individuals, foundations, and corporations that share its commitment to freedom. IFF does not accept any government funding. IFF is a tax-exempt organization under section 501c3 of the Internal Revenue Code. U.S. citizens will find their contributions to be tax-deductible to the extent allowable by law.</blockquote>Some of the biggest names in the world of Washington think-tankdom commit the same offense.<br /><br />They include the <a href="http://blog.pff.org/archives/2010/06/growing_opposition_to_ftc_saving_journalism_media.html">Progress and Freedom Foundation</a> and the <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/?p=36976">Heritage Foundation</a>, both of which slammed the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/news/jun15/docs/new-staff-discussion.pdf">idea</a> of government policy changes that could help support journalism as old business models crumble. Bottom line for both of these big-name foundations: Government support is bad -- except when it helps them stay afloat.<br /><br />I'm not here to flog the Franklin Center or any of these other organizations for their ideology. I know from a decade of reporting on Capitol Hill that it's darned hard to maintain one's purity when money is involved. But those who count themselves among the nonprofit sector in journalism should walk their own talk. Any nonprofit organization that says it "relies solely on the generous support of our donors" while also promoting the <a href="http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106990,00.html">charitable tax deduction</a> available to its donors is issuing, at best, what the late <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Ziegler">Ron Ziegler</a> might have called an <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,907098,00.html">inoperative statement</a>. <br /><br />The fact is, government subsidies for journalism are everywhere. In addition to the charitable tax deduction, they include mechanisms such as favorable postal rates and revenue-producing legal-notice requirements. <a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/davidwestphal/200911/1801/">Geoffrey Cowan and David Westphal</a> of USC identified these government subsidies to journalism in a <a href="http://communicationleadership.usc.edu/pubs/Funding%20the%20News.pdf">report</a> earlier this year and argued that they were intended by our founding fathers to help support a vigorous press. <br /><br />If you don't buy their argument, another proponent of the view that tax deductions constitute government support is view is <a href="http://grassley.senate.gov/">Sen. Chuck Grassley</a>. The Iowa Republican has been a tireless watchdog over the nonprofit sector, and the charitable tax deduction has been his entry point to investigations of <a href="http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=25912">hospitals</a>, <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/Key-Senator-to-Question-Tax/21172">athletic booster clubs</a> and other 501(c)(3)s. <br /><br />So what to do in a world of ambiguity?<br /><br />One solution would be for journalism nonprofits that eschew government support to refund the value of donors' tax deductions to the U.S. Treasury. The Franklin Center recently <a href="http://www.franklincenterhq.org/1866/franklin-center-announces-advisory-council/">named an advisory council</a> that includes well-known journalists such as <a href="http://twitter.com/tuckercarlson">Tucker Carlson</a>, and maybe that body could take up the idea at their next meeting. But I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.<br /><br />Here's another scenario: What if Grassley slipped in a legislative rider ending the charitable tax deduction for organizations involved in journalism? I bet the nonprofits mentioned above would howl like holy heck.<br /><br />Perhaps the best thing would be for these organizations to acknowledge the reality of their dependence on government support and focus instead on journalism. They have a lot to contribute from their point of view, and that should be reason enough for readers to support them.<br /><br />Until then, a little more transparency might be in order. If journalism nonprofits want to denounce government support while promoting tax deductions for donors, they should add an asterisk and a disclaimer to their solicitations for support.<br /><br />It's the transparent thing to do.<br /><br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br /><br />I asked representatives of several journalism nonprofits whether they thought tax deductions constituted government support. Here is the full response I got from Jason Stverak of the Franklin Center.<br /><br /><blockquote>Our generous contributors are not funding government support of journalism when they donate to the Franklin Center. In fact, the Franklin Center strongly believes that government intervention in media will create greater problems than the struggling newspaper business is currently enduring. If government intervenes in the news industry, journalists will no longer be able to report credibly on stories that matter to the people, but ultimately only on what matters to officials. Journalists may ignore scandal and corruption for fear of losing government funds. They could become political flacks and write to appease government instead of investigating it.<br /><br />Drawing the conclusion that every donation to a non-profit 501 c3 is supporting the government in some way is incorrect. Tax deductions for gifts to houses of worship are not funding government support of religion and tax deductable (sic) donations to health care associations are not supporting government healthcare.</blockquote>Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-72829414947611006942010-08-17T14:00:00.023-04:002010-08-31T16:17:48.496-04:00Googling Serendipity<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmAHaKZxY2RqcGlYtEQk7qfkMnaYEpRPpLIF31E8S3VThmZuFg45MOQSrsM1MfmJ-NhQDTzXgG0c0czk3VOMcjeAKORoJ3X-W7_Txj5_-O2yb7ytba6S-Spl6loUuyCz6xu3Y8JvpEXHw5/s1600/Eric-Schmidt_0.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 140px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhmAHaKZxY2RqcGlYtEQk7qfkMnaYEpRPpLIF31E8S3VThmZuFg45MOQSrsM1MfmJ-NhQDTzXgG0c0czk3VOMcjeAKORoJ3X-W7_Txj5_-O2yb7ytba6S-Spl6loUuyCz6xu3Y8JvpEXHw5/s200/Eric-Schmidt_0.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5506895021312655906" /></a>Twelve years ago, when I was reporting on the pending <a href="http://www.stern.nyu.edu/networks/Microsoft_Antitrust.final.pdf">Microsoft antitrust case</a>, I learned that what was really at stake wasn't immediately apparent in the legal briefs. It wasn't the browser market (remember <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape">Netscape</a>?) or whether Windows should be able to run somebody else's word-processing program. Rather, it was how control was exercised over the places where we learned, created and engaged in critical thought.<br /><br />One of the best thinkers on the topic was <a href="http://www.cs.umd.edu/~ben/">Ben Shneiderman</a>, founding director of the <a href="http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/">Human-Computer Interaction Lab</a> at the University of Maryland. He told me at the time that the critical question for Microsoft was not whether the company encouraged innovation -- it did -- but rather how financial pressures dictated which innovations it adopted and which it let wither. The Microsoft software suite, he noted, wasn't very accessible to people with learning disabilities or those with low incomes. <br /><br />Fast-forward to 2010, and now we hear from <a href="http://www.google.com/corporate/execs.html#eric">Eric Schmidt</a>, CEO of Google, another powerful technology company that controls the tools of creativity and expression. Schmidt recently <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html">talked to the Wall Street Journal</a> about the potential for applying <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence">artificial intelligence</a> to search, suggesting that the search engine of the future would figure out what we <span style="font-style:italic;">meant</span> rather than find what we actually typed. <br /><br />Schmidt seems to be pushing the idea that the future -- or, more accurately, each of our individual futures, interests and passions -- all can be plotted by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm">algorithm</a> from now until our dying day. The role of serendipity in our lives, he said, "can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically." <br /><br />Really?<br /><br />According to <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/">Webster's</a>, serendipity is "the faculty or phenomenon of finding valuable or agreeable things not sought for." So if the essence of serendipity is chance or fortune or chaos, then by definition, anything that a search engine brings to you, even on spec, isn't serendipitous.<br /><br />I don't know whether Schmidt's comments should be chalked up to <a href="http://chordian.net/images/news/young_frankenstein.jpg">blind ambition</a> or to <a href="http://mangeorge.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/nerd.jpg">quant-nerd</a> naivete. But it's troubling that Schmidt seems to discount the role that human nature plays in our everyday lives and, ultimately, in guiding our relationships with technology. <br /><br />It might be that Schmidt's vision for the search engine of the future would serve us well in finding a new restaurant, movie or book. But if Google really wants to take the guesswork out of our lives, we should be asking the same question that Shneiderman put to Microsoft. How might financial pressures shape Google's "serendipity algorithm"? What content -- journalism and otherwise -- will it push our way that will shape our worldview? And, to Shneiderman's point, what limits does it impose?<br /><br />I think it's safe to say that some good ideas don't lend themselves to being monetized online -- witness the rise of <a href="http://nonprofitjournalism.org/">nonprofit startups</a> in bringing us <a href="http://www.propublica.org/">investigative</a>, <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/">public affairs</a> and <a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/">explanatory</a> journalism. How might they fare in Schmidt's world order? <br /><br />I caught up with Shneiderman on Monday, and he agreed that this is one of the key questions that should be debated as we depend more and more on a "recommender system" in which companies like Google or Amazon use massive databases to anticipate our needs and wants. Public interest groups and other nonprofits that can't afford the right keywords could be most vulnerable in these systems, Shneiderman said. "How far down the list do the concerns of civic groups get pushed?" he asked.<br /><br />It's fair to ask companies what considerations and factors might be weighted in their search formulas, Shneiderman said, but it isn't clear what level of transparency should be expected. "What is a reasonable a request to make without exposing their algorithm and their business practices?" he said. <br /><br />I can't say either. But I do think there are some lessons that Google can take from the history that Microsoft has helped write.<br /><br />One lesson is that what's good for the bottom line doesn't always jibe with what's best for consumers. A dozen years ago, the Netscape browser was regarded by many as more as more functional, but Microsoft saw it as a threat. So it bundled its own <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx">Explorer</a> browser in its operating system and effectively priced Netscape out of existence.<br /><br />Another lesson is that it isn't always possible to divine what people will want in the future based on a profile of what they (or people like them) have wanted it the past. Indeed, some of the most successful technology companies -- Google included -- have succeeded precisely because their vision for the future was radical, new and compelling. Microsoft once played that role to a monolithic <a href="http://www.ibm.com/us/en/">IBM</a>. But today, as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html">Microsoft's market valuation has been eclipsed</a> by that of <a href="http://www.apple.com/">Apple</a>, it has become <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2012485921_microsoftfam30.html">debatable</a> whether Microsoft remains a consumer-driven company.<br /><br />None of this should be interpreted as an <a href="http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/cb/cuba/castro.html">anti-capitalistic rant</a>. We're all better off for Google's search box, and it'll be interesting to see where Schmidt's vision takes the company.<br /><br />Rather, it is a suggestion that even the most elaborate algorithms and high-touch e-marketing can't address every human need. <br /><br />One of the best vacations I ever took was when I pulled out of my driveway in Raleigh in late August 1991 with no particular destination. Two days later, I found myself in <a href="http://www.ndtourism.com/highresgallery/detail.asp?galleryID=271&catID=27">North Dakota</a>, discovering places I never would have appreciated based on my past interests or those of my friends and peers. The experience was so compelling to me precisely because it was serendipitous. <br /><br />That trip has served as an important reminder to me ever since. When we don't know what we want, sometimes what we really need is to figure it out for ourselves.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-55827132541877454902010-08-16T15:31:00.003-04:002010-08-16T16:47:02.771-04:00NPR's Folkenflik on Texas TribuneNPR's <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4459112">David Folkenflik</a> checked in on the progress of <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/">Texas Tribune</a> in a <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=129210695&m=129210673">profile</a> that was aired on Weekend Edition yesterday. <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129210695">transcript</a> doesn't quite capture the full experience -- including David's attempt to make the pop-up thought-bubble noise from the Trib's "Stump Interrupted" feature -- but it's a quicker read if you're in a hurry.<br /><br />Some of the most interesting comments come from the editors of newspapers that now are partnering with Texas Tribune.<br /><br />"We are picking up their stories and publishing them in the print newspaper because it gives us another well of political content," says Christopher Lopez of the <a href="http://www.elpasotimes.com/news">El Paso Times</a>.<br /><br />Not long ago, no self-respecting newspaper editor would publish statehouse coverage from what would appear to be a competitor. Now, it's standard operating procedure.<br /><br />My, how attitudes have changed.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-72069229580575880062010-08-11T14:27:00.008-04:002010-08-11T21:46:24.858-04:00ProPublica's 990: A Closer Look<a href="http://www.propublica.org/">ProPublica</a> posted its <a href="http://propublica.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/docs/990-for2009.pdf">Form 990</a> report to the IRS on Monday and -- predictably -- the only Google-able coverage, which comes courtesy of <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/new_media/propublicas_toppaid_employees_all_made_six_figures_in_2009_170212.asp">New York Fishbowl</a>, zeroes in on the salaries paid to <a href="http://www.propublica.org/about/staff/">Paul Steiger</a>, the organization's president and editor in chief. <br /><br />Yes, Steiger made a lot of money -- $571,687 -- but this isn't news: This is essentially the same salary that Steiger made and disclosed the year before. We can argue (again) over whether that's appropriate at a nonprofit -- he probably made lots more than that at the Wall Street Journal -- but it's hard to summon outrage at this late date. <br /><br />Potentially more interesting was the schedule of contributors included in the filing. Among other things, it shows that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandler_Family_Supporting_Foundation">Sandler Foundation</a>, controlled by ProPublica founders Herb and Marion Sandler, kicked in just $4.5 million last year -- far short of the $10 million they had offered to front.<br /><br />But there's no change in the Sandlers' rolling $10 million-per-year commitment, GM Dick Tofel explained in an email.<br /><br />"We just came into the year with a lot of cash, requiring less during the year," he wrote. "The Sandlers’ commitment is unchanged."<br /><br />Other big donors include the Knight Foundation ($985,000), the MacArthur Foundation ($500,000) and board member Mary Graham ($208,000 worth of Washington Post Co. Class B stock). <br /><br />There's still work to be done filling out ProPublica's donor pyramid, however.<br /><br />After Graham, the next-biggest contribution came from the Kohlberg Foundation ($50,000), meaning that ProPublica's five biggest donors accounted for 98 percent of the organization's $6.36 million in total revenues.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-58621742252887019692010-08-09T16:47:00.004-04:002010-08-09T21:49:01.712-04:00Rick Edmonds: Newsweek as a NonprofitA few days ago, Poynter's <a href="http://groups.poynter.org/members/?id=3550467">Rick Edmonds</a> put up a thoughtful <a href="http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=123&aid=188084">post</a> on the possibility that <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/">Newsweek</a> magazine might be converted to a nonprofit by its new owner, 91-year-old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Harman">Sidney Harman</a>.<br /><br />He makes a compelling case. Among other things, he cites Harman's interest in Newsweek as a "national treasure" and Harman's close relationship with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Isaacson">Walter Isaacson</a>, CEO of the <a href="http://www.aspeninstitute.org/">Aspen Institute</a> and a former editor of Time. <br /><br />My only nit to pick with Rick's argument is that he says "a nonprofit would provide continued subsidies and a commitment to a public service mission." <br /><br />Public service mission, yes, but subsidies, no. <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/">state-of-the-art models</a> are all predicated on the notion that foundation money is seed money to build a business that can be sustained by diversified sources of revenue, including events, memberships and other means of revenue generation. Subsidies aren't part of the plan for those thinking long-term.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-72776815951142647102010-07-28T13:21:00.003-04:002010-07-30T13:42:16.928-04:00WikiLeaks and a Failure of TransparencyIn all the kerfuffle this week around <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">WikiLeaks</a> and its disclosure of 91,000+ documents in its <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010">Afghan War Diary</a>, it seems to me that a fundamental irony has been overlooked: A nonprofit journalism organization dedicated to imposing transparency on reluctant governments seems to think the rules don't apply at home.<br /><br />Go to the WikiLeaks <a href="http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WikiLeaks:About">"about"</a> page, and you can see what I mean. There's lots of rah-rah about rooting out corruption, freedom of the press and why the site is "so important." But there's not a peep about organizational governance, where their money comes from or where it goes. <br /><br />In some cases, such opacity is by mistake. But in WikiLeaks' case, it is by design. Just two weeks before Afghan War Diary was released, <a href="http://www.wired.com/">Wired</a> published an <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-funding/">enterprising story</a> on WikiLeaks' finances. The reporter, <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/author/kimzetter/">Kim Zetter</a>, tracked down a vice president of the Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation, which apparently handles most contributions to WikiLeaks. The story provided some idea as to the scale of the WikiLeaks budget -- the group needs about $200,000 a year for basic operations -- but the vice president offered only a promise of more disclosure next month. And from WikiLeaks founder <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange">Julian Assange</a>? No comment.<br /><br />I understand the need to protect whistleblowers and other sources. But when it comes to the group's finances, can't they cut out all the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond">James Bond</a> stuff? I don't need names and addresses of donors, but can't we have a little more transparency and accountability? <br /><br />This isn't just a matter of idle curiosity. Love or hate WikiLeaks, the organization is doing more than its share to transform journalism. And it is doing so in dramatic fashion by fully unharnessing the power and creativity of the nonprofit model. As Ruth McCambridge noted in the <a href="http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4261:nonprofit-newswire-wikileaksbreakthrough-innovation-by-a-nonprofit-&catid=155:daily-digest&Itemid=137">Nonprofit Quarterly</a> earlier this week, WikiLeaks "may be the soul of nonprofithood."<br /><br />If that's the case, then the stakes involved in WikiLeaks' own willingness to operate with transparency are quite high. <br /><br />Perhaps the most-repeated <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2231009">criticism</a> of the nonprofit model in journalism is that an organization that relies in whole or in part on philanthropy will become beholden to its funders and will compromise its journalistic principles in order to ensure continued funding.<br /><br />That's simply not the case -- not any more than the newsroom of a for-profit newspaper would have a self-imposed ban on negative stories about car dealers, department stores and other (remaining) major advertisers.<br /><br />But the secrecy invites speculation. A July 3 <a href="http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-buck.htm">post</a> at Cryptome.org from a "WikiLeaks insider" alleges that the organization had become overly dependent on "keep alive donations" from left wing politicians in Iceland. It warns ominously: "Sooner or later it will be payback time. And payback will be in the form of political bias in WIKILEAKS output."<br /><br />WikiLeaks does its part to fuel the speculation and undercut its credibility as well. In the Q&A on its "about" page, WikiLeaks raises this question: "Is WikiLeaks a <a href="https://www.cia.gov/">CIA</a> front?" I'll save you a click back and tell you that the answer is no. But do we really need this kind of drama from an organization that presents itself as an honest broker of information? Of course not. It only serves to undercut WikiLeaks' credibility.<br /><br />If WikiLeaks really wants to promote transparency, it should start with its own operations.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-82768584244612993882010-07-27T16:22:00.004-04:002010-07-27T16:56:56.991-04:00Diane Rehm's TakeIn case you missed it, here's a <a href="http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-19/not-profit-journalism">link</a> to <a href="http://thedianerehmshow.org/">Diane Rehm</a>'s recent radio show focusing on nonprofit journalism.<br /><br />There are some familiar themes -- the astounding numbers of cuts in newsroom jobs, for example -- but Rehm also pushed hard to get her four guests to tout the benefits of the nonprofit model in addressing readers' distrust of news media. <br /><br />The best answer came from <a href="http://newsonomics.com/">Ken Doctor</a>, who said the nonprofit model can help newsrooms pursue a "purer mission in a way" than traditional, for-profit media that always have had to balance news judgment against commercial considerations. The key, however, is transparency, Doctor said. "Readers can come to a better idea of exactly what they're reading," he said.<br /><br />Another good answer came from <a href="http://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/evan-smith/">Evan Smith</a> of the Texas Tribune, who talked about the benefits of membership in generating engagement and support from the community the nonprofit serves.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-7840791946285525932010-07-15T12:01:00.004-04:002010-07-15T12:23:58.543-04:00Texas Tribune: "Lone Star Trailblazer"If you're not on the Texas Tribune e-mailing list, you might not have seen the profile that appears in the latest issue of Columbia Journalism Review. Here's the <a href="http://www.cjr.org/feature/lone_star_trailblazer.php?page=all">link</a>, and enjoy the read, courtesy of <a href="http://batsell.blogspot.com/">Jake Batsell</a>. <br /><br />The profile is notable for a couple of reasons. <br /><br />One is the level of detail it offers in examining the challenges that face the regional nonprofit news organizations that have cropped up around the country the past few years. Batsell spent a lot of time with the Tribune's staff and leadership, and it shows. He picks apart the business model as well as he does the journalism. <br /><br />Another is that the piece asks (and to the extent possible, answers) the right questions in the right context. For example, Batsell, like the leadership of the Tribune, examines on how the enterprise can be sustained for the long haul. (Answer: They still don't know, but they're adding to the playbook every day.) Questions about whether the Tribune harbors the economic and/or political biases of its funders aren't any more relevant here than they would be in a profile of a newspaper or magazine, and they're treated in the context they deserve. <br /><br />One piece of news (at least for me) that got buried: The Tribune is talking to the New York Times about providing content for a regional edition, much like it has with the Bay Citizen in California and the Chicago News Cooperative.Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1736316322349211715.post-21806053173801186322010-06-29T15:17:00.003-04:002010-06-29T15:31:56.628-04:00Steiger Speaks at All Things DIn case you didn't have the $5,000 it cost to attend, the folks who put on the All Things Digital conference earlier this month have now posted some of the interviews and presentations, including this <a href="http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100624/full-d8-video-demand-medias-richard-rosenblatt-and-propublicas-paul-steiger/?mod=ATD_rss">intriguing match-up</a> of <a href="http://www.propublica.org/about/staff/">Paul Steiger</a> of ProPublica and <a href="http://www.demandmedia.com/executive-leadership/richard-rosenblatt/">Richard Rosenblatt</a> of Demand Media.<br /><br />Warning: The full video goes on for 35 minutes. But if you've got the time to spare, it's a great exploration of the two contrasting business models -- Demand Media, driven with ruthless efficiency to produce only content that its algorithms predict will turn and profit, and nonprofit ProPublica, with its commitment to digging up stories that have broader impact on society. <br /><br />It was nice to see Steiger, formerly the top editor of The Wall Street Journal, making the case for nonprofit journalism. It still doesn't seem to come naturally for him. But he does stand firm, despite some mild cajoling by moderator <a href="http://kara.allthingsd.com/">Kara Swisher</a> to admit that he doesn't like having to accept philanthropy from millionaires. <br /><br />Example: Asked if he was disheartened about the state of journalism, Steiger replied: "I'm really excited. We're in the first inning." And asked if he thought ProPublica's brand of public service journalism ever could be put into a profitable package, he replied: "Conceivably. But I can't think of what it is."Jim Barnetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04014757251096289089noreply@blogger.com0