Lots of talk percolating that news organizations have an *ethical* duty to keep newspapers alive. It's an urgent question as revenues decline and bankruptcy looms (Chicago Tribune and Minneapolis Star-Trib are already there).
Some people say foundation endowments are one way to go.
Others look to a new model of non-profit journalism.
Some disagree.
What do you think? Do newspapers matter? Should we be talking about the medium (paper) or the function (gathering and disseminating news)? If this medium dies, what are the implications for citizens? For advertisers? For consumers?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Who should own newspapers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The endowment idea really interests me. Newspapers, or at least the reporting that comes out of the best of them, are as essential as our universities and schools. I think in some form or another they need to persist for the health of our country. The means to do it is again the big question. We read a proposal to use a small percentage of the biggest school's budgets to sponsor the New York Times in J201. However, in the current climate even these schools are struggling to continue as normal. I think the same goes for the non-profit model. Who will pay for this? It is very cool to read about Andy Hall (a local boy) and the things he's doing with our own school. I'd like to get involved with that and learn more about this topic firsthand.
I'm excited about the idea of nonprofit journalism. The for-profit model may have worked for the newspapers of the past, but times have changed, new, powerful competitors have emerged, and readers are developing a new set of demands. The struggle to make a profit has to be distracting newspapers from their true purpose--uncovering and informing.
It's highly likely that the quality of news would improve if profits were not the top concern.
I'm excited about the idea of nonprofit journalism. The for-profit model may have worked for the newspapers of the past, but times have changed, new, powerful competitors have emerged, and readers are developing a new set of demands. The struggle to make a profit has to be distracting newspapers from their true purpose--uncovering and informing.
It's highly likely that the quality of news would improve if profits were not the top concern.
The final author against nonprofits and endowments makes good points, but offers no solution... A lofty argument in my opinion.
I would surely pay however much for an article if it were "iTunes easy". Create an account online, easy one-click to purchase stories/dailies/monthly subscriptions is so unbelievable simple. This makes perfect sense and I think he hit the nail right on the head. I also liked the part about making journalists' work valuable. It isn't going to be about the medium in the future, but the work they (we will!) do is so incredibly valuable, and it needs to stay that way.
It was extremely interesting to read about Andy Hall, and even more-so to learn he will be working with the J-School. How exciting!
The skeptic makes a few good points, but I think he displayed weak logic in a couple critical areas.
First, the issue of accountability and how to actually structure a non-profit, self-proclaimed objective newspaper is definitely a large concern.
The problem is that the exact same concern exists right now. He tries to imply that it doesn't by pointing out that if Murdoch or whoever else gets out of line, you can get mad at them. This weak sort of reasoning makes me think he's missing the point.
Furthermore, he admits that this exact model can and does work effectively in several instances (including a former employer!).
Does that not end his argument? He is arguing that it won't work, but mentions that it already has.
What?
I don't think the model is as easy as the NYT proposal makes it sound, but I feel like it's worth a shot.
Post a Comment