In this space, I try to highlight ideas and resources that might be of benefit to people trying to pursue nonprofit journalism. Reading Dick Tofel's post from Saturday about the Associated Press' decision to distribute the work of ProPublica, I was reminded of one of those resources - an outfit known as Creative Commons.
The organization, a nonprofit, offers content creators (including nonprofit news organizations) off-the-shelf licensing agreements that allow them to give away their work, but do so under their terms - such as a requiring attribution and prohibiting "derivative" works. These kinds of agreements help build brands and show funders that the journalism is creating impact.
For more info, check out the video on their "about" page - the third one on the page, next to the header, "Our other legal tools and resources." It's about three minutes long, and is fairly compelling.
CC's motto: "Saving the world from failed sharing."
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
ProPublica's Plan for Sustainability
This just in from Dick Tofel in response to a question regarding exactly how ProPublica would invest the $1 million grant it will get from the Knight Foundation:
The grant also marks a big step for ProPublica in that it is the first seven-digit grant from anyone other than the Sandler Foundation, which put up $30 million to launch the organization in 2007.
We’re going to use the grant to launch a broad effort at development. We’ll almost certainly begin by conducting a study, using a leading fundraising consulting firm. Will be guided by the results of that.
Along the way, I’m sure we’ll need to bring on a development director, but want to more about where we’re aiming so we can know just what skill set and experience is optimal for that.
And Knight has put its money where its money is as well, adding an important element of general support to the project funding for development.
Sorry not to be able to be more specific, but if we had all the answers already, we wouldn’t need to do this work.
The grant also marks a big step for ProPublica in that it is the first seven-digit grant from anyone other than the Sandler Foundation, which put up $30 million to launch the organization in 2007.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Knight Foundation's Grants
At the IRE conference in Baltimore yesterday, the Knight Foundation announced in a statement that it would dole out $15 million in grants "to help develop new economic models for investigative reporting on digital platforms."
One piece of good news is that it looks like most of that money will be channeled into the nonprofit sector, where experimentation can take place while sheltered - at least in the incubation stage - from bottom-line pressures. Among the grantees are ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Even better news: $3 million of the $15 million is yet unclaimed. Remember, you can't win if you don't enter.
Now here’s my little black cloud. Look at the approximately $12 million in grants already awarded, and it seems that only about half really might have anything to do with developing new economic models.
One example of what I mean: $2 million goes to IRE "to create an endowment to permanently train journalists in the areas of watchdog and computer assisted journalism." Great! But that's an investment in the journalism, not the business model.
And among those that sound like they're about the business model, I have questions as well.
Nearly $5 million is going to News21 "to help 12 university-based investigative reporting projects look for a model of self-sustainability." Again, great. But News21 is Knight's partnership with Carnegie to support journalism education. Its mission statement says in part:
How is this is about an economic model?
The only thing that sounded like it was even close to the mark was a $250,000 grant to Boston University "to create a regional, university-based investigative reporting unit that draws on reporters from the local print, broadcast and digital press." Now there's an idea you can take to the bank. Or at least try.
Which is the whole point here. A time of crisis - the Knight release notes that "America’s daily newspapers employ some 10,000 fewer journalists in their newsrooms than they did a decade ago" - is no time to stick to the well-worn path of the familiar.
If foundations want to make a difference in journalism, they need to take some chances. Because of its legacy in the news business, Knight was better suited than any to place its bets strategically. By going with proven successes and in-house favorites, it sends the wrong signal to other foundations that are interested in joining the field but have yet to develop the necessary internal expertise.
One piece of good news is that it looks like most of that money will be channeled into the nonprofit sector, where experimentation can take place while sheltered - at least in the incubation stage - from bottom-line pressures. Among the grantees are ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity and the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Even better news: $3 million of the $15 million is yet unclaimed. Remember, you can't win if you don't enter.
Now here’s my little black cloud. Look at the approximately $12 million in grants already awarded, and it seems that only about half really might have anything to do with developing new economic models.
One example of what I mean: $2 million goes to IRE "to create an endowment to permanently train journalists in the areas of watchdog and computer assisted journalism." Great! But that's an investment in the journalism, not the business model.
And among those that sound like they're about the business model, I have questions as well.
Nearly $5 million is going to News21 "to help 12 university-based investigative reporting projects look for a model of self-sustainability." Again, great. But News21 is Knight's partnership with Carnegie to support journalism education. Its mission statement says in part:
The initiative will experiment with curriculum and hands-on experience with the hope of creating a national conversation with other schools across the country.
How is this is about an economic model?
The only thing that sounded like it was even close to the mark was a $250,000 grant to Boston University "to create a regional, university-based investigative reporting unit that draws on reporters from the local print, broadcast and digital press." Now there's an idea you can take to the bank. Or at least try.
Which is the whole point here. A time of crisis - the Knight release notes that "America’s daily newspapers employ some 10,000 fewer journalists in their newsrooms than they did a decade ago" - is no time to stick to the well-worn path of the familiar.
If foundations want to make a difference in journalism, they need to take some chances. Because of its legacy in the news business, Knight was better suited than any to place its bets strategically. By going with proven successes and in-house favorites, it sends the wrong signal to other foundations that are interested in joining the field but have yet to develop the necessary internal expertise.
AP to Distribute Four Nonprofits' Work
You may have seen this already, but it bears repeating in this space: The AP (also a nonprofit) on July 1 will begin distributing articles from four nonprofit news organizations, according to an article Saturday in the New York Times.
The article notes that the arrangement is a six-month trial that could be expanded. It says:
The article does not touch on any financial considerations - presumably, the nonprofits would receive no direct compensation for their work - but the enormous visibility that AP distribution offers the nonprofits does create some interesting possibilities as nonprofits seek sustainable business models.
The four nonprofits are: ProPublica, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Center for Public Integrity, and the Investigative Reporting Workshop.
The article notes that the arrangement is a six-month trial that could be expanded. It says:
The A.P. called the arrangement a six-month experiment that could later be broadened to include other investigative nonprofits, and to serve its nonmember clients, which include broadcast and Internet outlets.
The article does not touch on any financial considerations - presumably, the nonprofits would receive no direct compensation for their work - but the enormous visibility that AP distribution offers the nonprofits does create some interesting possibilities as nonprofits seek sustainable business models.
The four nonprofits are: ProPublica, the Center for Investigative Reporting, the Center for Public Integrity, and the Investigative Reporting Workshop.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Fast to Failure
We began our panel Friday with a quotation from Clay Shirky's essay, "Thinking the Unthinkable," to give the NIMSP conferees some idea of what is going on in the world of serious journalism. The upshot: Institutions are crumbling faster than they can be replaced, and nobody can know for certain what ultimately will replace them.
From that premise, our panelists began hurling ideas for what the future might hold - online media brands that will replace the books, newspapers and magazines that depend on crumbling business models.
A key to understanding how the next few years will unfold is a strategy John Thornton calls "fast to failure" - the idea that we need to test as many plausible ideas as possible to sort out those that actually will work. And as John notes, the best laboratory is the nonprofit sector, where innovators are freed from pressure to produce immediate profits. His answer is the Texas Tribune, an online investigative news source that he hopes to launch later this year and, he acknowledges, must navigate "a thousand ways to fail."
But as NIMSP board president Jeff Malachowsky said later, it's hard to get one's head around exactly what this means and why somebody would want to try. He and other conferees wondered why John didn't spend his time and money working with an established institution such as one or more of Texas' ailing newspapers. In the world of philanthropy, carfeul conservation of resources is part of the culture.
The answer, to paraphrase John loosely, is that established media simply don't get it - and they can't get it - because they are wed to a model that is failing. A "patch" is just that - it's not innovation.
Thinking the unthinkable, it turns out, is hard to do - even for highly imaginative people.
From that premise, our panelists began hurling ideas for what the future might hold - online media brands that will replace the books, newspapers and magazines that depend on crumbling business models.
A key to understanding how the next few years will unfold is a strategy John Thornton calls "fast to failure" - the idea that we need to test as many plausible ideas as possible to sort out those that actually will work. And as John notes, the best laboratory is the nonprofit sector, where innovators are freed from pressure to produce immediate profits. His answer is the Texas Tribune, an online investigative news source that he hopes to launch later this year and, he acknowledges, must navigate "a thousand ways to fail."
But as NIMSP board president Jeff Malachowsky said later, it's hard to get one's head around exactly what this means and why somebody would want to try. He and other conferees wondered why John didn't spend his time and money working with an established institution such as one or more of Texas' ailing newspapers. In the world of philanthropy, carfeul conservation of resources is part of the culture.
The answer, to paraphrase John loosely, is that established media simply don't get it - and they can't get it - because they are wed to a model that is failing. A "patch" is just that - it's not innovation.
Thinking the unthinkable, it turns out, is hard to do - even for highly imaginative people.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A Moment of Shameless Self-Promotion
For the next couple of days, I'll be at the annual conference of the National Institute for Money in State Politics - an event I mentioned in a post a couple of days ago. On Friday, I'll be part of a panel entitled "Information and News in a New Age" from 3:15pm-4:45pm Mountain Time. You can tune in to the panel (and the whole conference) by clicking this link.
We've got a really good group - not just old newspaper creatures like me. The other panelists are:
- Laurel Ruma, Editor, O'Reilly Media
- John Thornton, General Partner, Austin Ventures
- Robert McClure, Vice President, Investigate West
Some topics I hope we'll cover:
- Watchdog/enterprise/investigative journalism as a public good
- Hybrids and the blurry, blurry line between nonprofit and for-profit
- Nonprofit models that might work; models not so much
- Haves and have-nots, and the quest for sustainability
- New research, metrics and other steps toward scaling up
We've got a really good group - not just old newspaper creatures like me. The other panelists are:
- Laurel Ruma, Editor, O'Reilly Media
- John Thornton, General Partner, Austin Ventures
- Robert McClure, Vice President, Investigate West
Some topics I hope we'll cover:
- Watchdog/enterprise/investigative journalism as a public good
- Hybrids and the blurry, blurry line between nonprofit and for-profit
- Nonprofit models that might work; models not so much
- Haves and have-nots, and the quest for sustainability
- New research, metrics and other steps toward scaling up
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Three Conversations
Steve Katz, a fundraiser for Mother Jones, does a nice job of sorting out the various narratives now being woven about the role of nonprofits in preserving journalism.
His post, in sum, says there are three conversations about journalism and nonprofits that need to come together. Steve is a talented writer who knows a lot about this topic - check out more on his blog - but here's the boiled-down, eight-grade-reading-level version.
The groups still talking mostly among themselves are:
- Newspaper people trying to survive
- People who think we need public policy to support journalism
- Problem-solvers steeped in strategic philanthropy
(Did I get this approximately right, Steve?)
Again, the upshot is that the three groups need to start talking to each other, as Steve says, "because when we do I suspect very good things will happen."
While we're on the topic of getting people to talk to each other, Steve's post reminds me of a conversation I had last month with Dick Tofel of ProPublica. We were talking about how nonprofits might sustain themselves over the long haul, and I asked where he looked for ideas. One place he mentioned was the The Pew Charitable Trusts' Cultural Data Project.
The project, which is being built out on a state-by-state basis, uses a common "Data Profile" used by nonprofits seeking support from foundations. Though it's long, it's not rocket science. It's an attempt to get nonprofits to address common metrics, making it easier for donors to see which ones best fit their profile.
His post, in sum, says there are three conversations about journalism and nonprofits that need to come together. Steve is a talented writer who knows a lot about this topic - check out more on his blog - but here's the boiled-down, eight-grade-reading-level version.
The groups still talking mostly among themselves are:
- Newspaper people trying to survive
- People who think we need public policy to support journalism
- Problem-solvers steeped in strategic philanthropy
(Did I get this approximately right, Steve?)
Again, the upshot is that the three groups need to start talking to each other, as Steve says, "because when we do I suspect very good things will happen."
While we're on the topic of getting people to talk to each other, Steve's post reminds me of a conversation I had last month with Dick Tofel of ProPublica. We were talking about how nonprofits might sustain themselves over the long haul, and I asked where he looked for ideas. One place he mentioned was the The Pew Charitable Trusts' Cultural Data Project.
The project, which is being built out on a state-by-state basis, uses a common "Data Profile" used by nonprofits seeking support from foundations. Though it's long, it's not rocket science. It's an attempt to get nonprofits to address common metrics, making it easier for donors to see which ones best fit their profile.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)