Blogs and Stories
Should the News Go Nonprofit?
Access to a functional press is a basic right, so if news organizations are going to fail as business models, someone needs to pick up the slack—possibly you.
It didn’t start out this way, but the newspaper survival crisis has taken on some of the trappings of the broader financial calamity in the country. Last week there was a Time cover story, a New York Times online roundtable of experts, a Charlie Rose panel, and a torrent of punditry elsewhere on what must be done. All of those opinions being amassed in search of solutions recall the notion that, with so much debris, “there must be a pony in there somewhere.”
The odds are that, in the future, more news will be supported in nonprofit settings, as are universities and museums, two other core aspects of our fabric of knowledge and progress.
Arguments about the future of news, like those over the country’s broader economic troubles, tend to proceed along two tracks that are parallel but intersect in crucial respects. The first track is ideological, in many ways comparable to the controversy about the role of government surrounding the stimulus package. The second track, similar to the arcane details of the “bailout” for the banking sector, is what to do about the demonstrably broken business model of metropolitan newspapers and news magazines.
Track One. What exactly does society need and expect from the newsgathering process? A functioning press is a constitutionally protected right. Yet, for the most part, news is supposed to be a business, dependent on securing advertisers and attracting subscribers. So if news can no longer be sustained by commerce, what happens to this fundamental pillar of democracy? That is the basis for serious discussion about re-imagining news models to make public support and nonprofit status a fail-safe, assuring that journalism—the lens through which society monitors government, industry, and foreign affairs—will be sustained even if, as a profiting-making enterprises, the system has failed.
One of the mistaken (or simplistic) beliefs is that all news organizations are now losing money, and because of the decline of newspapers and news magazines, news will soon not be collected. Actually, there are a group of highly professional and very large organizations that provide broad-gauged and systematic coverage of many matters. The Associated Press (a cooperative owned by news businesses) is a vast national and international service. Thomson-Reuters, Bloomberg, and Dow Jones news wires have a heavy slant toward business, but have thousands of reporters deployed around the country and the world, tracking events. The AP has many features that could be adopted by other news organizations, including licensing the use of its information instead of giving it away. The cable-television news networks, while subject to the advertising downturn in the economy, are still providing ample cash because of a structure that extracts fees from everyone on a cable system, whether they watch the channel or not.
And then, there are the nonprofit news models, such as National Public Radio, PBS, and C-SPAN, which now have 30 years of experience navigating the demands for securing resources outside the market and without the obligations of public companies. (But let’s be clear, they face plenty of challenges also.) So on this track of debate, the issue is whether the government, the philanthropic sector, or anyone else has a fundamental obligation to save the major metropolitan dailies from Seattle to Miami, from Los Angeles to Philadelphia, that are in dire straits. “Who owns the news?” is a question posed whenever the perils of corporate dominance are being probed. If top-quality news at every level, from micro-local to global, is a democratic imperative, then greater emphasis needs to be placed in all the current confabs on how society can step in when the marketplace fails.
There are certain things that are essential to national well-being—education, infrastructure, health care—and news is one of them. The odds are that, in the future, more news will be supported in nonprofit settings, as are universities and museums, two other core aspects of our fabric of knowledge and progress. As any university president or museum director will tell you, that structure is not nirvana, but it does work.









Take a look at his blog, Mr. Osnos. This is where news is going to originate from now on. It's a far more democratic and unbiased source than advertiser-supported forums. Please send my royalty check to freethinkers.com for this priceless insight.
The for-profit model always had its dangers. Yellow Journalism for one. The recent lemming-like lockstep into the Iraqi War, for another.
What is Journalism, actually? Is The News the same as news? The same as facts? The same as important information one cannot live without?
I miss the days when you turned on the 7 o'clock news and you knew the rest of your society/culture was watching it along with you. What would we call that now? It was far more than "news."
Anyway, stuff goes "viral" these days. Manipulation of attention is rampant. Who knows what the real sources are. Who has the time or inclination to figure it out? Authority will continue to weaken. I think that's what we're seeing with all the partisan bickering that we've been drowning in in the last 16 years.
Who the h. knows where "Info" is going. Mr. Osnos, like the rest of us, can only guess.
Isn't the news already non-profit? I can't think of one that is making any money.
The news should look at the Daily Beast and do more stories about how hookers spend their Valentine's. Works for the Beast.
Right, Tina?
Non-profit news was the way of the past. The people who owned the newspapers made a living not a fortune, and that is what the non-profit model offers today. New agencies need to gather facts so that we as informed citizens can make informed decisions. The Blogging is the best thing that has happened to this country since newspapers. It can eclipse TV, but the facts are the facts, and most blogging is opinions. I strongly urge you to support non-profit news, it is an essential part of our national infrastructure.
http://tinyurl.com/cukv78
...the future of news?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
So the two points of this post are:
1) News is a constitutional right.
2) We should have to pay for access to the news.
Sorry, what?
I read lots of blogs and collections of news stories and commentary on the web, and am grateful for them. They are a tremendous addition to our democracy, and to my ability to participate and a well-informed (and intellectually-challenged) citizen.
But make no mistake--these sources complement and build upon, but are no substitute for, the expensive-to-maintain (and incrreasingly struggling) news gathering operations that traditionally have required networks of paid reporters and editors associated with major newspapers, newsmagazines, and--occasionally--broadcasters, both domestically and abroad. If those enterprises go down due to the failure of their business models, we are all in trouble, as is our newly reinvigorated democracy.
Here is one news consumer who recognizes the need to pay for the news gathering operations on which we all depend. I have no objection in principle to being charged for the benefits I accrue from online access to this valuable resource. On the other hand, I have no great desire to subsidize the benefits accrued by others of similar or more robust means who do not contribute to the common enterprise, nor do I desire to subject myself to more begathons of the sort associated with our pathetic approach to sustaining public broadcasting, whether on tv or radio.
Other societies have found better means of supporting such common resources (e.g., by targeted taxes on tv's and radios), and perhaps we should be considering ways to extend this or parallel models to internet access.
While I am not convinced by Mr. osnos' assertion that consumers have a constitutional right to be provided with the news, I certainly agree that robust and independent (and preferably competing sources of) newsgathering are critical to the effective functioning of our democracy, and I further agree that we must, one way or another, find a way of sustaining the economic viability of this critical part of our society.
I certainly hope our antitrust laws do not prevent some cooperative efforts (subject to periodic revisiting to prevent abuse) to develop viable means of doing so.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.