As newspapers continue their struggle to cling to life, might they turn to philanthropic sources for much-needed capital? I’ve been writing for a while, probably with misplaced optimism, about the future of newspapers, but this might be a solution.
A recent article in Online Journalism Review tells how newspapers and local broadcasters may soon seek support from non-profit foundations and private donors as a way to partially fund their news-gathering operations.
This is not a new concept. Some non-profits, as well as some businesses, already provide funding for news and analysis programs on PBS and National Public Radio and their local affiliates. Newspapers, however, are businesses that, for the most part until recently, have returned handsome profits to the owners and/or shareholders. So how might they accept funding and at what risk to the independent way newspapers have traditionally reported the news?
There already are precedents. A variety of grant programs from organizations provide funding to enable reporters to work on special projects. The granting organization stipulates subject areas they’d like a reporter to cover in order to receive the stipend. Other grants are open-ended. In most cases, the stipend goes to the reporter and not to the newspaper or other news organization.
If newspapers were to accept funding, it could raise the possibility of censorship or the pushing of certain subjects or points of view to be covered. Certainly there have been cases of big advertisers trying to exert influence over news content. We sometimes hear of an advertiser pulling its ads from a paper or a network when they’ve disagreed with the content or tone of a story or an editorial.
In most cases, media have not caved in to that sort of pressure, putting a high premium on the integrity of their news content. I think they would strive to maintain those same standards when dealing with financial supporters.
Charlotte Hall, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and editor of The Orlando Sentinel, sees potential benefit in having foundations offer grants to newspapers, to bolster their reporting capabilities. She expresses some concern over the possibility of those foundations seeking to exert influence over how news is reported. She also thinks the process of seeking grants can put an added burden on newspaper staffs already stretched thin.
It can work, though. The Knight Foundation recently awarded 21 grants totaling $5 million to civic foundations to help fund local news organizations such as local cable and local online news sites. ASNE’s Hall says she was impressed by the range of projects that mostly helped fill unmet local news needs.
To my knowledge, none of the Knight grant money went directly to any newspapers.
I think newspapers can and should go after non-profit funding to help support or expand their reporting. If a non-profit has as its mission the broadening of understanding and appreciation of science, for example, why shouldn’t they offer grants to newspapers to expand their science reporting? It’s a win-win situation, as the paper gets funding which can free up resources for other aspects of its news-gathering, while easing its financial pressure. And readers get better coverage of the news, including a better knowledge of local happenings including watchdog reporting on local government.
The only possible sticking point I see is for newspapers to maintain independence. I don’t think it will be a significant issue, since, as I noted above, it hasn’t hindered good, independent coverage and analysis on public TV and radio.
Let me throw another idea into the mix, which I know will seem impractical right now as we struggle with mass layoffs, stimulus packages and government bailouts,
We should establish a Federal News Fund. $500 million …. a pittance in these times of multi-billion dollar bailouts …. could support and expand news-gathering and investigative journalism (newspapers’ historic strong suits) at a majority of the nation’s daily papers. For smaller papers, an annual infusion of $150,000 – $200,000 would pay a few reporters’ salaries and help the paper’s bottom line. Larger papers might get a bigger amount.
I won’t get into the details of who gets how much, how the money is monitored to be sure it is spent on news, and how government censorship is prevented. I’ll leave those details for people a lot smarter than I am.
But I think government assistance, along with funding from philanthropies, can help keep newspapers …. in print and online …. alive and healthy so they can continue to do what they do best …. inform, analyze and question happenings around the world, throughout the nation and down the street in our own communities. If some of our tax dollars can help keep newspapers filling that important role, I’d say it’s money well spent.
David,,
Normally, we are on the same page. As a former journalist, however, I don’t want a federal monies going to private companies–especially those we depend upon for news. There is reason news is called the 4th Estate. It’s primary job is to be a government watchdog. Federal money compromises that role, even if it’s only by perception.
Perhaps, Lewis. But I wonder if a system could be established to ensure transparency and lack of interference or influence… or even the perception of it.
I fear that if nothing is done, much of the 4th Estate will cease to exist, or what is left may not be worth too much in terms of real journalism.
David,
One reason newspapers are failing started happening well before the economic downturn. Papers have not yet figured out how to maintain readership with all the other time-gobbling activities pulling them away.
Were I in charge of the science grant in your example, I would first want to know what the paper planned to do to distribute its science news to middle and high schools in the vicinity. For other grants, I’d want to see the scheduled newsroom visits by classes, the number of journalists who visit classrooms to help infect some children with the news bug.
I don’t agree with the model–as profitable as it must be–of not paying most writers that some popular news web site/blogs follow. Mature businesses have always needed to reinvent themselves. Newspapers might well turn to marketing gurus such as you before tossing in the rag or passing the hat.
I live in village that lost its community newspaper last week. It feels like a death. People are trying to cobble something together. I’m told to stay tuned.
Jeanne, when a community loses a local newspaper, it loses convenient access to local news and info. I know where you live, you don’t have access to hi-speed online connectivity, so it’s difficult to go to online sources for info the local paper used to carry, such as news of town meetings, movie show times, etc.
I am concerned about the state of the media as I think that we are in such a state of flux right now that some very important things could fall through the cracks. Who sends reporters to the far corners of the globe and to your city council meetings? There need to be reporters out there covering these things.
I like the idea of foundation grants and the like. Traditional media is, rightly, scrambling to adapt to modern realities, too.
I do not like the idea of government media as that smacks too much of “state” media. If you have nearly all major media accepting government money it creates a dependence and possibly symbiotic relationship that is unhealthy. We need independent, free media always.
I think NPR does a good job of maintaining its independence from the state in its reporting but we cannot rely on that if the state were to fund media across the board.
I see your point Neil, but the way I envision it, taxpayer money would be funneled to papers via some formula, but with absolutely way for government to try to influence the press’ freedom.
Again, I realize I may be pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but I am sure a way could be worked out to make this work and avoid the pitfalls we are all concerned about regarding freedom of the press.
Something does need to happen as I am concerned that in these times of great flux in the media that important reporting will fall by the way side. A free press that has the resources to send reporters into the field is absolutely essential to a functioning democracy.
Everyone complains about the press but I know how hard a life it is. Both my maternal grandfather and grandmother were journalists. It has always been a hard knock life and we should be grateful there are those out there doing it every day.
Neil, I spoke with a reporter who was recently cut from a daily Westchester newspaper. She said that more and more articles in the paper come from syndicates. In my opinion, this paper is doing a disservice to its readers–there are many places people can read national news. Syndicates won’t be covering the local press.
And David, even if we had Internet access, it’s easier to check out a page of a paper with all the movie listings, which I can take along with me in the car, than finding four sites on-line.
I also can’t be bothered to visit six real estate sites, when in a second, I get the lay of the land in the paper–or on the paper’s site.
But maybe I’ll have to.
What a shame. I hope these local and national papers can figure out a way to make money with online versions and keep reporters working.
If local, national, and international coverage suffers because of this shake out it will be a tragedy. Also, think of all these talented journalists sent to the bench. What a shame.
See… my idea can help support a stimulus package since it will keep some journalists on the job.
I do not think your idea would get much political support, though. Do you think such a proposal would go over well with the public?
There is a much better chance of getting the foundations involved and so on. Someone could even form a foundation just for this purpose. Foundation money might serve as the bridge from old to new that we. The media is in a bit of a chasm at the moment and nobody quite understands where this all leads.
Once workable business models start to take form, private investment will flow back in.
You are probably right, Neil. This would be a political hot potato, especially the way many like to bash the media.
It would be fun to try, though.
David – I’ve been giving this a lot of thought lately, too.
As I was considering it last week, I pondered whether we were destined to nationalize the newspapers or to adopt some sort of 3rd-party payer system (like health insurance) to maintain the viability of newspapers in their current state.
Both solutions have enormous problems that render them unacceptable.
Then I started to question my premises.
Who says newspapers need to continue in their current form? Why is it generally accepted that “good journalism” will disappear if newspapers go out of business?
If there is a need for it, I thought, then the market will find a way to produce it.
Just because it will be in a form we can’t predict doesn’t necessarily mean the quality will be inferior.
I haven’t come to any conclusions about it yet that I’d be comfortable sharing, but I wanted to throw that out there to get your feedback. Obviously I’m still struggling with it, too.
I understand your concerns, Cam. Hopefully, others venues will emerge that will support solid journalism. So far, I haven’t seen a lot of it online, but maybe that will change as the marketplace changes, whether those sites are run by newspapers or by other news-gathering organizations.
I am not so sure, however, that the problems with the solutions mentioned would necessarily render them “unacceptable.” And when I talk about keeping newspapers alive, it doesn’t mean in their present print format. It could be an online-delivered product. Much as I like newsprint, I know that it’s quickly becoming an obsolete technology.
Cam, first, I believe the original idea was philanthropic support of media (foundations and the like) and David added government to that. The government part is *very* unlikely but it is a good discussion to have.
The problem we have here could be one of a classic market failure.
There is a public good in knowing what is going on in the world and locally. If the media infrastructure set up to provide that information is collapsing then what replaces it?
For some other examples of public goods: clean water, clean air, parks, basic research, military, police, fire, etc. These are things that society needs but are not immediately profitable and some of these things clearly cannot be put wholly into the public sector for obvious reasons even if they were profitable.
So what I am about to say is a worse case scenario but worth considering: what if the infrastructure of covering the news collapsed? Do the alternatives really have the resources and experience to cover capital hill, send reporters to war zones, cover city council meetings, etc., etc., etc.
If they do not then do we just accept this massive gap in information flow or do we consider such information a public good? I take it as a given that a free press is core to a functioning democracy. But not a free press that gets out and covers stories has to be part of that.
In my last sentence I meant a free press that gets out and covers stories has to be part of that. The word not was a mistake.
Ah, sorry, I am tired. Above I meant the following: These are things that society needs but are not immediately profitable and some of these things clearly cannot be put wholly into the **private** sector for obvious reasons even if they were profitable.
Neil -
I think you have to make a distinction between market failure and business failure. Business fail in a working market all the time. The market doesn’t promise that all businesses or business classes will always be successful. That’s not the point of a free market.
“If the media infrastructure set up to provide that information is collapsing then what replaces it?”
Why do we automatically presume that nothing can?
The most important thing to do to keep newspapers alive is to teach people how to read. The next most important thing is to encourage people to be curious about what is happening around them. With those attributes, people will realize they will get a clearer picture of the news from newspapers than from any other source.
Cam, I agree 100% on business failure and do not assume that nothing will replace it. I said in my post that a worst case scenario is that nothing with the infrastructure of the press replaces it.
Let’s take Afghanistan as a point. With due respect to bloggers and the like, who has reporters on the ground there? Who will send more as the U.S. increases its presence there? I would guess it is mostly traditional media, though correct me if I am wrong.
If your local newspaper goes out of business who covers your local city council, school boards, etc., etc.
It would be interesting to know are the businesses that replace the ones that fail able to perform the functions of a free press in a free society? Most of us I think would agree a free press is key to a democracy.
This is not just a local restaurant or something that is going out of business but something that provides a public good. If someone will explain to me what is flowing in to take the place of the traditional media that fail, I am listening.
Cam, btw, a government bailout would not fly politically so I do not even think that idea is on the table. It does, however, bring up the important question of whether news is a public good.
Seth Godin did a couple of good posts on papers recently:
Time to Start a Newspaper
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/time-to-start-a.html
and
When newspapers are gone, what will you miss?
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/when-newspapers.html
Call me a pollyanna, but I am hopefully confident that newspapers will eventually figure it out and develop a business model that works for these times. It may be a combination of revenue from online subscriptions, pay-per click and advertising… and some papers may still see some financial viability in producing a print edition as well.
The key thing is that newspapers as news-gatheribs need to stay alive, with or without help from philanthropies and the government.
And Alan’s point about newspapers teaching people how to read and be curious is well-taken. Hopefully, that can be accomplished by reading papers online too.
Cam, I am not automatically assuming market failure at all but just positing that there is a worse case scenario where nothing fills the crucial gap.
Seth Godin has done some good posts on this topic lately, including this one:
Time to start a newspaper
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/time-to-start-a.html
David, I have noticed that the NY Times has been doing pay-per-click type stuff. I think we will see more and more interesting developments as media adjusts to new realities.
“Cam, I am not automatically assuming market failure at all but just positing that there is a worse case scenario where nothing fills the crucial gap.”
If such a worst-case scenario does come to pass, and the market does not respond by filling that crucial role that we all seem to agree the press is supposed to play in a free society, I have serious doubts that the problem can be solved by legislation and taxpayer money.
The roots of the problem would go much deeper than that. It hearkens back to our collective desire for liberty and the wherewithal to maintain it.
Like David, though, I tend to agree that the industry will figure this one out.
As you said, it’s good to have these discussions.
Yes, a political solution is a non-starter for a number of reasons.
I know it would be very tough, but I wouldn’t necessarily write off a political/government solution.