For the past four years, I have made my intellectual home at George Washington University's Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, pursuing a master's in nonprofit management. Today, I take my last exam, and on May 15 I take on a new title: alumnus.
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 that I otherwise might have not. It allowed me to help frame questions that the emerging nonprofit sector of journalism must answer in order to survive. It also allowed me to have some fun.
The journey began seven years ago, when I read an article by my first graduate school adviser, Philip Meyer, 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.
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?
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.
Now excuse me while I do some last-minute cramming for that econ final.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Advocacy Organizations And Journalism
One 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.
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, The Washington Post, has been owned and operated for years by .... an advocacy organization.
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 examination of the Post Co.'s Kaplan educational subsidiary that was published in the April 10 Sunday Business section.
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 Title IV -- work that Post Co. Chairman Don Graham took on personally. From the article:
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.
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 something. The bottom line is, they have to earn that trust -- just as the Post has done.
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, The Washington Post, has been owned and operated for years by .... an advocacy organization.
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 examination of the Post Co.'s Kaplan educational subsidiary that was published in the April 10 Sunday Business section.
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 Title IV -- work that Post Co. Chairman Don Graham took on personally. From the article:
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.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.
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.
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 something. The bottom line is, they have to earn that trust -- just as the Post has done.
Friday, March 11, 2011
A Milestone for Sustainability
As reported by Paid Content today, Texas Tribune and Bay Citizen are splitting a $975,000 grant from the Knight Foundation to build "a free, open source publishing platform for other news organizations."
Great news. But the bigger news was buried a few sentences lower, where we learn that in 2010, philanthropy accounted for just 51 percent 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).
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.
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.
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 Mendoza Line considerably farther north.
Great news. But the bigger news was buried a few sentences lower, where we learn that in 2010, philanthropy accounted for just 51 percent 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).
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.
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.
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 Mendoza Line considerably farther north.
Monday, February 28, 2011
George Soros' Media Conspiracy
Before 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.
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 Andrew Breitbart.
He writes:
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.
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.
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 sued Breitbart for defamation.
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 Andrew Breitbart.
He writes:
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.
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.
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.
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 sued Breitbart for defamation.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Comcast's Christmas Present To Nonprofits
It won't come as a surprise to many when, later this month, the Federal Communications Commission approves Comcast's plan to buy NBC Universal and the 10 local affiliates that the network owns.
But when the order comes out, look for a late Christmas present from Comcast: As first reported by The New York Times, 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.
In a letter 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."
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."
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.
The letter goes on to explain that the partnerships would be modeled after the working relationship between nonprofit voiceofsandiego.org and KNSD, 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 Scott Lewis, CEO of voiceofsandiego.org, explains in an interview with Investigative News Network.
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.
"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."
Indeed, there is precedent for cooperation beyond San Diego. Texas Tribune, for example, has cooperated with KHOU in Houston, lending out its reporters to discuss public affairs stories. And in the print arena, ProPublica has established relationships with newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. As Lewis notes, the key for nonprofits is getting partners to see the value in supporting the nonprofit as a community asset.
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:
* Through its Future of Media initiative, the FCC has expressed a strong interest in fostering new models for underwriting public-affairs journalism.
* Notably, it was the FCC -- not Comcast -- that contacted Lewis to learn about the relationship with KNSD.
* 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.
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NBC owned and operated stations:
KNBC Los Angeles
KNSD San Diego
KNTV San Jose
KXAS Fort Worth
WCAU Philadelphia
WMAQ Chicago
WNBC New York
WRC Washington DC
WTVJ Miami
WVIT Hartford-New Haven
But when the order comes out, look for a late Christmas present from Comcast: As first reported by The New York Times, 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.
In a letter 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."
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."
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.
The letter goes on to explain that the partnerships would be modeled after the working relationship between nonprofit voiceofsandiego.org and KNSD, 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 Scott Lewis, CEO of voiceofsandiego.org, explains in an interview with Investigative News Network.
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.
"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."
Indeed, there is precedent for cooperation beyond San Diego. Texas Tribune, for example, has cooperated with KHOU in Houston, lending out its reporters to discuss public affairs stories. And in the print arena, ProPublica has established relationships with newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post. As Lewis notes, the key for nonprofits is getting partners to see the value in supporting the nonprofit as a community asset.
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:
* Through its Future of Media initiative, the FCC has expressed a strong interest in fostering new models for underwriting public-affairs journalism.
* Notably, it was the FCC -- not Comcast -- that contacted Lewis to learn about the relationship with KNSD.
* 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.
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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NBC owned and operated stations:
KNBC Los Angeles
KNSD San Diego
KNTV San Jose
KXAS Fort Worth
WCAU Philadelphia
WMAQ Chicago
WNBC New York
WRC Washington DC
WTVJ Miami
WVIT Hartford-New Haven
Monday, December 20, 2010
A Modest Proposal For (De-)Funding NPR
Shortly after the November midterm election, resurgent House Republicans proposed cutting funding to National Public Radio -- which incoming Speaker John Boehner called "a left-wing radio network" -- by forbidding local stations from using government funding to buy NPR programs.
It was a ham-fisted approach inspired by NPR's firing of commentator Juan Williams and it went down 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 funding through various forms of philanthropy and sponsorship -- make its case for government support?
Like Boehner, a lot of Republicans think NPR is biased against them, despite evidence 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.
If that's the case, maybe they're right.
NPR doesn't get funding directly from the federal government. Member stations receive grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 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.
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.
So here's a modest proposal for the incoming Republican House majority: With $478.8 million in grants in 2009, 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?
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.
I'm not a big fan of government funding of journalism. But the fact of the matter is that government subsidies are everywhere -- from CPB grants to favorable mailing rates and tax deductions for individuals' grants to 501(c)3 organizations such as the Franklin Center. 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 Pat Buchanan suggests. Until then, they shouldn't kid themselves about what they would accomplish by blocking NPR's public revenue stream.
+++++++++++
Public Media "Have-Nots": The 20 states with the lowest CPB grant totals in 2009
Rhode Island $774,711
Wyoming $982,129 *
Maine $1,582,392
Montana $1,623,470 *
South Dakota $1,636,221 *
Vermont $1,693,422
West Virginia $2,192,000 *
Idaho $2,192,525 *
Mississippi $2,225,238 *
New Hampshire $2,227,215
Hawaii $2,522,417
Connecticut $2,834,282
Alabama $2,887,913 *
Arkansas $2,952,858 *
Oklahoma $3,146,341 *
Nevada $3,184,697
Kansas $3,356,566 *
North Dakota $3,386,257 *
South Carolina $3,513,303 *
* denotes state won by McCain in 2008
Source: Corporation for Public Broadcasting
It was a ham-fisted approach inspired by NPR's firing of commentator Juan Williams and it went down 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 funding through various forms of philanthropy and sponsorship -- make its case for government support?
Like Boehner, a lot of Republicans think NPR is biased against them, despite evidence 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.
If that's the case, maybe they're right.
NPR doesn't get funding directly from the federal government. Member stations receive grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, 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.
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.
So here's a modest proposal for the incoming Republican House majority: With $478.8 million in grants in 2009, 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?
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.
I'm not a big fan of government funding of journalism. But the fact of the matter is that government subsidies are everywhere -- from CPB grants to favorable mailing rates and tax deductions for individuals' grants to 501(c)3 organizations such as the Franklin Center. 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 Pat Buchanan suggests. Until then, they shouldn't kid themselves about what they would accomplish by blocking NPR's public revenue stream.
+++++++++++
Public Media "Have-Nots": The 20 states with the lowest CPB grant totals in 2009
Rhode Island $774,711
Wyoming $982,129 *
Maine $1,582,392
Montana $1,623,470 *
South Dakota $1,636,221 *
Vermont $1,693,422
West Virginia $2,192,000 *
Idaho $2,192,525 *
Mississippi $2,225,238 *
New Hampshire $2,227,215
Hawaii $2,522,417
Connecticut $2,834,282
Alabama $2,887,913 *
Arkansas $2,952,858 *
Oklahoma $3,146,341 *
Nevada $3,184,697
Kansas $3,356,566 *
North Dakota $3,386,257 *
South Carolina $3,513,303 *
* denotes state won by McCain in 2008
Source: Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Andy Alexander's Wake-Up Call
Nonprofit news organizations got yet another wake-up call Sunday morning from Washington Post Ombudsman Andy Alexander.
In his regular column today about an environmental story produced by the Center for Public Integrity, he took Post editors to task for publishing the story without telling readers what CPI is and why the Post is publishing its work.
More than a dozen readers simply hadn't heard of CPI, Alexander wrote. But one reader he cited by name -- Douglas H. Green of Washington, D.C. -- took issue with CPI. Green said CPI "often gives a biased, anti-business view on environmental topics," according to Alexander.
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.
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."
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.
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.
In his regular column today about an environmental story produced by the Center for Public Integrity, he took Post editors to task for publishing the story without telling readers what CPI is and why the Post is publishing its work.
More than a dozen readers simply hadn't heard of CPI, Alexander wrote. But one reader he cited by name -- Douglas H. Green of Washington, D.C. -- took issue with CPI. Green said CPI "often gives a biased, anti-business view on environmental topics," according to Alexander.
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.
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."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)