Results matching “propublica could the nonprofit”

The Associated Press' six-month pilot project to distribute content from four nonprofit journalism outlets has so far proven to be a disappointment, Nieman Journalism Lab reported Friday.

Through interviews with the participating nonprofits as well as the AP, Laura McGann of Nieman Journalism Labs found that AP members had used very little of the content provided by the nonprofits.

"We're not really seeing that many reprints and we're not really sure why," Mike Webb, director of communications for ProPublica, told McCann. "We don't know what it is," he said.

California Watch is a nonprofit news organization based in Sacremento that supports local investigative journalism and will provide stories to news publishers when it is launched in December by the Center for Investigative Reporting. CW is the largest investigative team in California and is dedicated to serving the state's public through accountability reporting.

It has been a rough couple of years for the newspaper industry with the recession taking its toll on the financial stability of many organisations. In the past year alone at least ten publications have filed for bankruptcy and many have been forced to close their doors. With newspapers treading fast to try to keep their heads above water many have cut back funding for more costly types of news. One of the first things to go has been investigative journalism, considered by many publications to be a luxury. The time and investment of multiple resources in a single issue is something that many publications simply can no longer afford.

These cuts have raised alarm bells. The potential loss of 'the fourth estate' and 'government watchdog' have united many in the cause to protect the practice of journalism, even if the business and profitability of it is doomed to fail.

One method suggested to preserve this type of journalism is to run as a non-profit organisation. Seeking the status under the claim that journalism is a 'public good' publications are free from commerical pressures and the disappointment of dwindling circulation figures, relying only on donations from those who feel the cause worthy enough.

It is at this point that the Texas Tribune enters the scene. The online-only news site launched early last week as a non-profit venture in an attempt to fill a gap in quality local journalism in Texas. The Editors Weblog spoke with editor-in-chief, Evan Smith to look at Tribune's website and non-profit ambitions in closer detail.


The inspiration:
The big name in non-profit news is ProPublica. Led by former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger, the organisation began publishing in June 2008 and has consistently drawn in large sums of donations, with key sponsor the Sandler Foundation contributing annually. ProPublica, which will write an article then offer it to a newspaper to publish, has carried out some impressive investigative feats to date, most notably its collaboration with the New York Times, published in August. The 13,000 word article which cost an estimated $400,000 to produce examined the events that took place at the Memorial Medical Centre following Hurricane Katrina. The piece highlighted the importance of such investigative journalism and made the need to save it even more apparent.
 
The Texas Tribune aims to achieve something similar on a smaller and more political scale, offering Texans a news source designed to compliment local newspapers that already exist: "We've made a point of not presenting this as a binary choice: A or B. We believe it's additive: A and B. Read your local paper and read us. In fact read as much stuff as there is out there" says Smith.

"We're simply presenting ourselves as one in a series of things that you need to read and listen to and view and access if you want to be a thoughtful and engaged Texan." 

In his first posting on the website Smith talked about what the Tribune was attempting to achieve: "What we mean to do on an ongoing basis is right there in our stated mission: to promote civic engagement and discourse on public policy, politics, government, and other matters of statewide concern."

In ProPublica fashion, the Tribune has said that all the information published on its website is up for grabs for other media organisations as part of a content-sharing plan designed to aide other reporters who might not have the time to look into an issue in depth.  Matt Stiles, one of the Tribune's staff reporters writers told Poynter Online in an interview: "Ultimately, we'd like to tell every paper in the state, 'If you like this data set, just take it'."

"I hope reporters will come see the information, download it, remix it and be creative with it."

The build up:
In July this year Smith announced he was leaving his position as editor-in-chief of established Texas Monthly magazine to take up the post as CEO and editor of the Tribune. A few months later, the Tribune added Elise Hu, Emily Ramshaw and Matt Stiles to its list of experienced journalists.

In an interview with Poynter in September, Ramshaw talked of her decision to join the project: "I feel, and still feel, that the newspaper business is in serious crisis. I'm not content to cling to a deck chair and go down with a sinking ship."

Ramshaw worked for The Dallas Morning News for six years, the last three of which she was state investigative reporter.  "We're trying to prepare for the next incarnation of journalism. If this venture is going to work, it's going to work because serious, talented journalists were brave enough to take the risk," she said.

The Tribune has built up a selection of notable reporters willing to do this and Chairman and co-founder John Thorton had been quoted as saying: "We didn't hire journalists out of work. We hired reporters who their editors were pissed off that they lost them."

Smith and Thornton worked hard on securing donations, with Thornton himself donating $1 million to the Tribune. In early October the founders confirmed they had received a further $750, 000 in grants from the Houston Endowment and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. The Tribune is now only slighty short of the $4 million target it needs to continue running for two years, with a current total of $3.7 million.

The sum is considerable for a start up website, as paidContent's Staci Kramer has noted: "Unlike some of the new crop of local and regional news startups, the Tribune is launching with enough money for a well-paid staff of 16, including 11 reporters," referring to salaries of $315K for the editor in chief, and up to $90K for seasoned reporters.

As for promotion of the site itself, Smith told the Editors Weblog just how useful social networking sites have been. Regular updates for the public on the status of the site via Facebook, Twitter and the site's own newsletter built up a sense of curiosity over what exactly they had in store for last Tuesday's launch.
 
"We've been very aggressive on Facebook and Twitter both to promote the content and also to connect with our community of followers" said Smith. "We've also used both to aggressively push for funding. We've generated quite a lot of memberships in the Tribune which are much like memberships in public radio by pushing over Facebook and over Twitter messages that relate to our fundraising campaign, and they've been very successful," he says, citing the 1400 founding members who have given between $50 and $5000 to the Tribune out of their own pockets.

What does the site look like?
The website debuted with top stories on the mistreatment of disabled children in public schools, the Democratic lean of El Paso in an otherwise Republican state, and the results of a poll carried out by the Tribune and the University of Texas.

The site itself is divided into ten pages, the organisation of which differ from your average news website. Offering 11 databases under a section titled 'Library' for further reading, the databases contain information ranging from federal campaign donations, gubernatorial appointees and lawmaker spending. In addition to this there is a complete electoral directory of every Texan senator and governor- the site essentially offers a single space for complete personal and political data on the '242 occupants of the state's highest offices'.

It is clear that a lot of time has gone into collaborating this research, and according to the Nieman Journalism Lab, the Waco Tribune-Herald has already taken advantage of the new resource and published some Tribune content. 

Aside from the databases, the site boasts eight of its own blogs and links to some 25 others; has a 'topics' section where stories can be found based on theme; a calender, where information about local events can be found or submitted; and a 'Tweetwire', a Twitter feed from all Texan politicians on the website's front page.

Compared to the recent launch of another local non-profit news website, Oakland Local, the Tribune's website is much more sophisticated. The Texan team have embraced the capacities of the internet and technology to their full, utilizing social media, widgets, videos, blogs and mobile applications- something Smith believes to be key to the way in which the use of media is changing.

"In consumption of media people are paying more attention to online media today then ever before," say Smith. "I look at my almost 13 year old daughter and how she consumes media and it's not at all in print it's almost entirely online and I think that's the trend line."

Smith suggests that publishers need to adapt to measure up to this changed method of consuming news: "You cannot simply go out and record the news, present that to people and believe that that's going to be enough. You need to give them the tools to better understand their world, to better know their state, to better know the people they elected, to better hold them accountable and that often is all not simply conventional reporting but the amassing and presenting of data that allows people to access the world in which they live from a more detailed level."

Why will the Tribune succeed where others have failed?
Whilst successful local non-profit news publications do exists, the Voice of San Diego and the MinnPost to name a few- there are also notable failures such as the Rocky Mountain Independent and InDenver Times, two online start-ups founded by Steve Foster earlier this year. How will the Tribune ensure that it doesn't suffer the same fate?

Smith says that the Tribune essentially has a better business plan, arguing that the RMI and InDenver Times failed because they were run by journalists, not business people and "didn't really have a plan for how to make the model sustainable."

Part of the reason the Tribune is choosing to remain online-only is because "the cost of printing a print publication for postage and paper and print facilities is so expensive that you reduce your overhead dramatically and therefore make it much more likely that your business model will sustain."

Of course the Tribune's has also managed to raise a healthy budget, further insulating itself against some of the problems faced by other publications. "Money is, as in all things, the mother's milk of your operation," Smith says, continuing on to mention that the having the financial capacity to buy the latest technology and hire top journalists will "go a very long way to allowing us to do our best work."

Smith's views bear resemblance to industry commentator Alan Mutter, who recently critized many online non-profit publications for not being business-minded enough. Mutter accuses these publications of "a suicidally stubborn determination on the part of the organizers to be in the business they want to be in, instead of attending to the business they need to attend to," and he argued early last month that, "A business, especially a start-up, requires far more than passion for the work. It requires close attention to the nuts and bolts of raising money, making sales and controlling expenses."

How will the Tribune navigate ethical issues?
A nagging question over the non-profit model is how publications will be able to resist influence from major donors. Smith argues that the seperation between donors and the editorial team is no different to the situation between advertisers and editorial: "I edited a magazine for nine years in which we had big advertisers who also happened to often be the subject of stories and the transactional economy that supports the operations of a for profit publication has no relationship what-so-ever to the journalism inside, or it shouldn't anyway, not at a good magazine and not at a good newspaper."

"Just because someone advertises doesn't mean you go easy on them or you go hard on their competitors."

Nevetherless, the non-profit news model is still in early stages and very dependent on the income from donors. Even for-profit news publications have not been immune to advertsing clients flexing their muscles in tough financial times, with a Detroit paper recently being accused of reporting on private health care following a request from client Humana (who subsequently purchased an ad next to the story).

What would Smith do if he was approached by a donor to cover a particular story? 

"Donors don't expect that were going to write about their issues or about their enemy's issues in a negative way, they're not looking for us to take sides- they're supporting the principle that hovers above all this activity: that journalism in the public interest has value."

"Any donor who is unhappy with the coverage we provide because of such an expectation is welcome to his or her money back," he says, adding: "I'd rather lose my funding then lose my integrity."

So are non-profits the next incarnation of journalism?
The wider debate on whether or not non-profits are the future of journalism has been raging for a while. Online magazine, Slate's Jack Shafer has weighed in for the negative: "In the current arrangement, we're substituting one flawed business model for another. For-profit newspapers lose money accidentally. Nonprofit news operations lose money deliberately."

Thornton, the Tribune's chairman, hit back at the remarks: "I call it the Stockholm Syndrome. They are sympathizing with their advertiser-captors."

So who is right? Is the non-profit model the future of journalism?

Yes and no. It is unlikely to become a general solution for newspapers simply because of the huge sums of money involved, but for nieche reporting and more time/fund consuming journalism such as investigative reporting, it could definiatley be a viable option.

The idea compares favourably at least to the suggestion of government bailouts. As Thorton wrote of the "obvious fox-in-the-henhouse issues that arise--to mix animal metaphors--from government watchdogs funded out of government coffers."

As the first serious, state-focused news site with a decent enough amount of money behind it and what seems to be the right attitude toward embracing the capacities of the digital age and the changing face of journalism- whether or not the Texas Tribune succeeds will be key to the way in which the non-profit model is viewed.

As Tribune reporter Christe Hu suggests: "Journalism is at a crossroads right now. We're seeing not just survival of the fittest but a 'mutation of the species.' "

"I think the non-profit model has just as good a shot as anything else."

The report is quite detailed, and includes various examples and covers many topics, but focuses on local news and the value of quality journalism. Beginning with a history of the newspaper industry that culminates in its weakness in the face of internet news, Downie and Schudson explain the importance of investigative and accountability journalism for a democracy, holding it as a public good. 

In a heartwarming news source startup tale, the Bay Area News Project, a local news source for high-quality jounalism in the San Francisco bay area distributed primarily through online and mobile mediums, was formed through a partnership and cooperation of the local Media Workers Guild and philanthropist Warren Hellman.

New nonprofit the Texas Tribune has acquired Texas Weekly, a newsletter for government and politics in Texas and has made its first hires, according to a press release. The online-only news outlet is scheduled to launch this autumn with a mission to promote civic engagement and discourse on matters such as public policy, politics and government.

Incoming CEO Evan Smith, who is leaving Texas Monthly to take up his new role, announced that Texas Weekly editor and owner Ross Ramsey will be the Texas Tribune's new managing editor. The first five reporters on the newsroom team were also announced: Brandi Grissom, Elise Hu, Emily Ramshaw, Abby Rapoport, and Matt Stiles. All seem to have experience in covering state politics. 

Last week, Evan Smith traded in his position of editor-in-chief at Texas Monthly magazine for a new gig at a regional, nonprofit news site, the Texas Tribune. It's not that the Lone Star state monthly was in particular trouble (thanks to him, Texas Monthly claimed two National Magazine Awards since his presence at the magazine, not to mention over a dozen of prestigious nominations) that made him jump ship. No. The trouble that he seeks to rectify is that of gaps in reporting left by traditional news outlets. What some are touting as a "risky career move," has for him provided the impetus to raise $2.2 million, just over half of the goal of $4 million that he is set to raise prior the site's launch.

Smith explains in a letter of resignation that the Texas Tribune, a partnership with friend John Thornton, is "a nonprofit, nonpartisan public media organization whose mission is to promote civic engagement and the discourse on public policy, government, and other matters of statewide interest." He adds that"The Texas Tribune will publish original news reporting online (much like ProPublica) and put on conferences, conversation series, and other on-the-record, open-to-the-public events (much like the Aspen Institute)."

A young freelance journalist, Lindsey Hoshaw, is trying to raise money via Spot.Us for a story that could eventually end up in the New York Times. Hoshaw spoke with the NYT about investigating the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and its effect on the levels of toxins in local marine life, and then started looking for funding for the project.

Spot.Us, which supports crowd-funded journalism, usually receives pitches that do not have a specific publication in mind, and in this case both the company and the New York Times have taken care to make it clear that although both outlets are involved in the story, it does not represent collaboration. The trip that Hoshaw plans to take to cover the story will cost $10,000. It involves embarking on a month-long voyage to visit the Garbage Patch in the northern Pacific to study the levels of toxins in fish tissues. Out of the $6000 she aims to make through her pitch on Spot.Us (she will personally pay for the rest), over $4000 has already been donated. 

Poynter's Bill Mitchell reported that the New York Times is considering seeking funding from foundations to help support some of its news-gathering costs. Nothing is definite, however, and the paper has no intentions of becoming fully nonprofit, Mitchell was told by Craig Whitney, an assistant managing editor at the Times who serves as the paper's standards editor.

Whitney said the paper's editors "haven't reached any conclusions and haven't gone to any foundations" but that "we've begun to ask ourselves whether it would be possible to get the kind of support that NPR does from foundations for its journalism." He specified that such discussions began around the time that ProPublica launched early last year but have picked up in 2009.

Twenty-five American nonprofit news organisations have decided to come together to form an Investigative News Network, following a three-day conference at the Pocantico Conference Center in New York. Its mission is to aid the work and public reach of its members, and to foster the "highest quality investigative journalism" to hold those in power accountable.

The Pocantico Declaration anticipates an increase in the number of investigative news publishers, and hence seeks to establish "basic shared goals and news values." It identifies several different forms of potential collaboration. Firstly, editorial: meaning that nonprofits could carry out joint accountability projects. Secondly, administrative: organisations could exchange information about organisational functions and even possibly centralise some of these. Thirdly, financial, which could consist either of just sharing information and jointly fundraising, or even of "pioneering new economic models to help to monetize the shared, combined content of the member organizations, in order to achieve a more sustainable journalism.

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has announced that it is to give grants totalling $15 million to help develop new economic models for investigative reporting on digital platforms. The grants intend to promote both local and national investigative reporting to "help provide the vital stories that citizens need to run their communities and their lives," said a press release.

The three latest grants are going to the Center for Investigative Reporting ($1.32 million) to launch a new multimedia investigative reporting project in California, to the Sunlight Foundation ($565,000) to develop web tools so the public can easily access information on Congressional lawmakers and to ProPublica ($1.01 million) to help the investigative reporting organisation create a sustainable business model.

The Associated Press will start distributing watchdog and investigative journalism from nonprofit organisations at no cost to its member newspapers on July 1, it announced at the 2009 Investigative Reporters and Editors Conference in Baltimore. It will be a six-month trial project involving four nonprofit journalism organizations, reported a press release.

The project is aiming to provide the nonprofits with an additional distribution channel, while making it easy for the AP's 1500 member newspapers to find and use this content. It will be provided via AP Exchange, the AP's web-based delivery system, at no cost to either the newspapers or to the contributing organisations. Exchange users will have the option of routinely displaying the nonprofit journalism in their news searches.

Michael Kinsley has offered his insights into what type of ownership model is preferable for a newspaper. He discusses how US newspapers often used to be owned by "grandees: wealthy and civic-minded individuals or families," but many of these sold out to large chains. As newspapers make less money, these chains cannot afford to keep them, so Kinsley considers whether ownership by a 'grandee' or a nonprofit foundation is the solution.

"Which will be most likely to provide the combination of financial security and editorial freedom that newspapers need?" he asks. Having experience of both different arrangements, he believes that "being owned by or dependent on a nonprofit foundation is the worst possible solution." Kinsley was editor of Harper's Magazine when it was set up as a non-profit foundation with money from the MacArthur Foundation. He reported to the board of directors, and had to comply with their "ruthlessly conventional views" and the tendencies of their friends to "take offense at any attempt to be interesting." He mentions that he had to publish a board member's wife's poetry.

Former industry analyst and media commentator Lauren Rich Fine wrote a strong criticism of the growing consideration of not-for-profit status as an option for newspapers. Last week she took part in the Duke Conference on Nonprofit Media, where she saw her role as "to remind everyone that the business model wasn't working and that philanthropists don't typically give funds to organizations that have yet to find stability."

Rich Fine believes that the best way to preserve good journalism is to "let the market figure it out on its own." She asserts that successful not-for-profit start-ups such as ProPublica or MinnPost are surviving not because of their philanthropic support, but because of their "entrepreneurial spirit and lean cost structure, two things most newspaper companies are lacking."

Last Wednesday, May 6, the US Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to review the plight of the newspaper industry, to better understand new media and the new model emerging, and to assess the role that government should play in the media as it evolves. The Future of Journalism hearing was presided over by Subcommittee chair Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, who called the hearing in response to the threatened closure of his local paper, the Boston Globe, and the troubles facing newspapers across the country as advertising and circulation decline and the Internet replaces traditional media.

In his opening statement, Kerry says the committee has met to discuss not only the jolting condition of the newspaper, but also its implications for the future of journalism and the country. He believes it is important to "preserve the core society function served by independent and diverse media" and questions whether online journalism will "sustain the values of professional journalism the way the newspaper industry has." The committee invited five prominent representatives of various types of media to express their views about the Future of Journalism and offer their solutions.

"Why is the government interested?" asks Kerry. "We do have a responsibility for the licensing of broadcast. We have a responsibility for the regulatory oversight of ownership of cable, satellite, other issues with respect to communications; and needless to say, how the American people get their information--what the structure of ownership is--is of enormous interest to all of us because it is the foundation of our democracy." Is there even any government role at all, he wonders, or is this simply a normal transition in the marketplace?

Considering the nonprofit model

Before it heard from the media representatives, Maryland Senator Ben Cardin spoke to the committee about his Newspaper Revitalization Act, which proposes a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status for newspapers. Cardin stresses that online journalism does not supply the in-depth reporting and investigative journalism provided by traditional newsrooms that are essential to a free and democratic society. His bill would provide an opportunity for local supporters--whether individuals, foundations, or educational institutions--to come together to preserve their community newspaper.

The major criticism of Cardin's bill is that it could threaten a newspaper's freedom of speech: 501(c)(3) status allows editorializing but prohibits a paper from endorsing political candidates. The independence of journalism from government is crucial to its role as watchdog, and it is undesirable for a newspaper to have the government involved in judging its content. However, in their addresses to the Committee, both Steve Coll, former managing editor of the Washington Post, and former newspaperman David Simon, say that while they seriously oppose government interference in newspapers, they are intrigued by the nonprofit model.

Newsrooms provide an important public service, so why shouldn't the government give them the tax exempt benefit of becoming non-profits? After all, the danger of government interference in content could be exaggerated. Any single politician or political party attempting to manipulate a publication would be immediately exposed through other media outlets, and the threat is not much greater than private ownership where powerful investors might maneuver the paper to serve their own interests. Nonetheless, the greatest issue faced by nonprofit newspapers and their investors will be where to draw the line between endorsing and editorializing. If a newspaper's responsibility is to provide the public with unbiased information, then blatant political endorsements seem in violation of that role anyway, but nonprofit status could limit criticism and commentary on politicians and legislation that might reduce the media's role as watchdog.

As Coll and Alberto Ibargüen, President of the Knight Foundation, point out, nonprofit is not a universal remedy nor will it solve newspapers' profit problems. The initiative could be viewed less as a savior of the newspaper entity and more as a bridge to preserve local journalism during a transitional period. Ibarguen says that relieving profit pressures with nonprofit status might help newspapers "extend their useful life until we figure out what's next and what online model can afford professional journalism."

Relaxing antitrust could help publishers charge for online content

The other great appeal for government intervention in newspapers has been the request for changes to media ownership and antitrust policy. Last month the Justice Department rejected House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's request to change the boundaries of media antitrust to include all media in a geographic area--including radio, TV, and newspapers--when deciding whether a sale is anticompetitive.

Pelosi's antitrust proposal raised obvious criticism about the independence of newspapers and consolidation of ownership. However, at the Senate hearing, Simon and James Moroney, publisher and CEO of the Dallas Morning News, approached antitrust from a different angle: they urged the Committee to give newspapers an antitrust exemption so that industry leaders could convene to discuss copyrighting from aggregators and charging for content online.

Unable to foresee the digital future, at the advent of the Internet newspaper publishers made the mistake of offering content free online. Now readers are accessing that content for free, not through the publisher's site, but through aggregators like Google News, which also does not pay publishers for content. Marissa Mayer, vice president of Search Products and User Experience at Google Inc., defends Google to the committee, calling it a "conduit" for journalism that provides a free service to online newspapers by driving traffic to their sites.

However, Simon and Moroney argue that aggregators do not provide adequate compensation for the revenue generated from publishers' original content. They contend that as of now, the profits publishers make from online advertising are not enough to sustain the quality journalism newsrooms have been providing. There must be an industry wide initiative to charge for content online, says Simon, as no individual can swim against the tide. According to Moroney, under the current antitrust laws, publishers cannot even begin to have a conversation about possibilities for pricing or charging aggregators.

If the government does relax antitrust to allow for this industry wide "conversation," it could possibly lead to major publications placing a pay wall around content, charging users and aggregators, but does such a pay wall threaten the free market? One of the virtues of the Internet is the accessibility of information, so where do pay walls and content hoarding fit in? A generation of Internet users already views information as a free commodity, and charging online users for content will significantly reduce traffic, which will in turn reduce advertising revenue. Even if industry leaders can convene and discuss, they still might find themselves at a loss for a viable solution.

Experimentation and innovation rather than government intervention

The hearing's last speaker, Arianna Huffington, co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, opposed antitrust exemptions, paywalls, or really any government intervention. In fact, she countered some speaker's doom and gloom position with the opening statement, "Journalism will not only survive, it will thrive." Her main point is that the industry has changed and moved forward and there is no going back.

Huffington says, "The future is to be found elsewhere: it's a linked economy, it's search engines, it's online advertising, it's citizen journalism, and the foundations supporting investigative journalism. That's where the future is, and if you can't find your way to that, then you just can't find your way."

Ibargüen, Mayer, and Huffington all support embracing new media and encouraging experimentation and business models that promote digital possibilities. For Ibargüen that means providing universal, affordable digital action and adoption in the US and more inclusive public media that reaches every American. Neither he nor Huffington mourn the decline of investigative journalism, and both praise the efforts of nonprofits like ProPublica and the Knight Foundation supported Voices of San Diego for providing quality journalism outside the traditional newsroom.

According to Mayer, "The structure of the web has caused the basic unit--the atom of consumption--to migrate from the newspaper to the individual article," and because of the Web's ability to operate in real time, this allows for "living" instead of "static" stories that are constantly changed and updated like Wikipedia or the New York Times' "Times Topics." These changes to the way information is viewed, insist Mayer and Huffington, mean a different approach to monetization is necessary, which requires innovation and creativity. The solution for newspaper publishers is not to appeal to the government for a handout to preserve the old ways, but to adapt quickly and direct their time and resources into experimenting with the monetization of traffic through advertising.

What will the Senate decide?

Despite Kerry and Cardin's concern for the American newspaper, more than one of the subcommittee's senators held up a Blackberry during the hearing, proving themselves a part of the new digital audience. The general consensus of both the senators and media representatives seemed to be that their priority is not to save newspapers but to promote policies that sustain journalism.

How enlightening were the testimonies of the media representatives? Though certainly thorough in unveiling all the problems facing the media today, they failed to provide the government with a cure-all solution as to how it should proceed.

It seems fairly likely that the Senate could pursue the nonprofit solution as it seems basically harmless and might help some local newspapers stay on their feet at least long enough to find another answer. Relaxing antitrust could prove more risky, giving industry leaders the occasion to consolidate prices and possibly restrict information in a move that could prove more harmful than helpful to their own purpose.

The testimonies may have encouraged the Senate to do nothing at all for the newspaper but instead to accept that the audience and the market is evolving and no legislation can hold it back. If this is the case, then publishers will be faced with only one choice: innovate or fail. Instead of resisting change, they must get a grasp on technology and the new audience, paying attention to the success of others, then find ways to provide creative content and advertising solutions. As a few of the speakers said, this is still a transitional period for old media and new media, and there is still immense possibility for originality and advances. Though certain publications might lament their own fate, it is too early to be mourning the future of journalism.  

In his column "N&O not letting go of vigilance," News and Observer executive editor John Drescher praises extensively the achievements of the paper's investigative team and boasts of its expansion. "In an era in which newsrooms are shrinking, the expansion of our investigative team reflects our commitment to shining a light in the dark corners of government, business and society," he says.

Many believe that well-researched, in-depth investigative journalism is under threat as newspapers are forced to cut costs in order to survive. Because investigative journalism is time and resource-consuming, it is often sacrificed for breaking news stories. However, Drescher says the N&O has no intention of following this trend, asserting, "The N&O has a long tradition of investigating. We've been wounded by this recession. But as much as some public figures would like for us to fade, we're not going away."

In advance of a of gathering at Duke University's Sanford Institute of Public Policy for a series of working sessions to explore new models for non-profit ownership of media, Penelope Muse Abernathy has prepared a background paper examining four distinct non-profit options for the New York Times. Abernathy holds the Knight Chair in Journalism and Digital Media Economics at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The NYT's financial situation

Abernathy starts by describing the New York Times' "unique" financial situation. For the last decade, its assets have been impressive, with a dual revenue stream from advertising and circulation that totalled $1.7 billion in 2008. In recent years, the New York Times Media Group has received 55-60% of its revenue from advertising, 30-35% from circulation and the remainder from other sources such as syndicating content. This is significantly different from that of many other newspapers, which typically count on advertising for 80-85% of their revenue.

The second day of the Logan Symposium at UC Berkeley had a panel devoted to the future of investigative journalism, considering "recently it has not been a high priority for editors and publishers," due to the time, money and energy that goes into it.

The discussions involved different leaders in the field such as Robert Rosenthal of the Center for Investigative Reporting, and Buzz Woolley, chairman of the board and primary funder of Voice of San Diego. The air was relatively optimistic as the speakers focused on collaboration as the key to the future of investigative journalism.

Bill Keller of the New York Times commented, "I don't think investigative journalism will go away, and there is emerging media that will be partly profit, partly non-profit, partly collaborative, partly competitive, mainly online". Robert Rosenthal was hopeful: "Last year I said the business model for newspapers was toast. Now I believe that collaboration is going to be very important for profit and nonprofit journalism". Esther Kaplan, of The Nation Institute Investigative Fund says that partnerships in the field "are in their infancy" and they take a lot of work to happen. "We should consider a lot more, like joint investigation sites, shared technology for micro-financing," she added.

Could the non-profit model be the saviour the newspaper industry has been looking for? This question was prompted by a New York Times op-ed on 28 January, which proposed that America's "most valued sources of news" should become non-profit institutions funded by endowments. Animated responses to this article, both positive and negative, have appeared throughout the media since: from Steve Coll writing for the New Yorker who suggests that the rise of non-profits is verging on an inevitability, to Roy Greenslade in the Evening Standard who believes that the obliged political neutrality will be the stumbling block, to Jack Shafer of Slate who feels there is "something disconcerting about wanting to divorce the newspaper from market pressures." The Editors Weblog spoke to Paul Steiger, Editor-in-Chief and President of ProPublica, one of the largest American non-profit news ventures currently in existence, to find out more about how the non-profit model works for them. As a former managing editor of the Wall Street Journal, Steiger has plenty of experience in the for-profit side of the industry as well.

How ProPublica works - free articles for partner papers

New York-based ProPublica uses its funding to support 28 staff, who produce investigative reporting which is then given, not sold, to news outlets. Editors and reporters decide which stories they want to pursue, and after beginning investigation into the issue, they will offer the story to a relevant publication. If the original choice of partner does not want it, ProPublica will find somebody else. Steiger said that ProPublica articles have appeared in about 20 newspapers, including the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, "a bunch of websites", as well as television news channels, such as CNN or CNBC. Stories appear on the ProPublica website shortly after publication by the chosen partner: ProPublica promises an appropriate period of exclusivity but Steiger explained that many partners are happy for the story to appear on ProPublica either immediately, or a matter of hours later. The site will always link to the partner that has the story, which is publicity for the partner and means that "people coming to our site will always know what we are up to."

Stories with moral force
.
The general criteria for stories are those which "shine a spotlight on abuse or power of failure to uphold the public interest," according to Steiger. Reporters have broad beats, such as the effectiveness of government spending, health care, energy and the environment, voting rights or the impact of the legal system on the poor. These are national issues, which sometimes veer into international territory, but can also have a local focus. Steiger described one of the most important projects in the past year: an investigation of the risk to the water supply of deep drilling for national gas, which is undoubtedly a national and even international issue. But because reporters discovered a crucial government decision pending in New York state which would have put legislative and regulatory protocols into place to give the industry carte blanche to drill wherever it chose, ProPublica offered the story to the local Albany Times Union, and hence grabbed the attention of the governor and legislators. Government policy was consequently changed.

Propublica searches for stories that "shine a spotlight on abuse of power or failure to uphold the public interest"

Embracing multimedia, enhancing impact

ProPublica has embraced online distribution. The newsroom has "a huge online focus," stressed Steiger, "much larger than I expected when I got into this." He explained that the organisation has had "tremendous success" with outfits such as Politico or the Huffington Post, "they have given great distribution to some of our stories." Steiger is also enthusiastic about the multimedia advantages of online reporting: "the awareness of how online graphics and online interactive elements can enhance a story and enhance its impact is penetrating through the entire group," he commented. The older staff from print backgrounds are learning rapidly from the younger reporters with online backgrounds, " because that's where so much of the energy and the growth is."

Money doesn't buy you influence

One of the potential problems with privately funded non-profit news organisations is the risk that those who fund them might try to influence the news that comes out of them. Herb Sandler of the Sandler Foundation, ProPublica's principle founder, is also chairman of the ProPublica board, which leads an outsider to question his influence over the reporting.  Steiger was clear that "he and the board have agreed that they will have no advance knowledge of what we decide to cover. They will see it on the day of publication." Steiger ensures that reporters are shielded from influence from the board: although board members are invited to offer story ideas, Steiger emphasised that "these are to be funnelled only through me or through managing editor Stephen Engelberg so the reporters won't feel pressured by getting a call from a director." The Sandler Foundation has made a multi-year funding commitment. Other funders are the MacArthur Foundation, the Atlantic Philanthropies and Mary Graham's personal foundation.

"The board have agreed that they will have no advance knowledge of what we decide to cover. They will see it on the day of publication."

So, is this a model that could be implemented more widely?

Paul Steiger explained that his day-to-day job at ProPublica was no different because of the non-profit element of the site. So, is this a model that could be implemented more widely? It is clear that the business model that has supported newspapers until now no longer works. Instead of desperately trying to save and adapt the current business model, is it time for a new one altogether? The authors of the New York Times piece, David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, both from the Yale's investment fund, believe that "As long as newspapers remain for-profit enterprises, they will find no refuge from their financial problems... By endowing our most valued sources of news we would free them from the strictures of an obsolete business model and offer them a permanent place in society, like that of America's colleges and universities." A shining example (outside the US) of a paper not pressured by making money for shareholders is the Guardian, which is owned by a trust, and has been subsequently less affected by the recent financial downturn. The paper's website almost always tops the list of British newspapers in terms of reader numbers, and generally boasts more than the New York Times. The privilege to work without extreme financial pressure is something which would undoubtedly benefit the world's newspapers. One crucial point would be to ensure a long term endowment, as having to frantically search for funding every year would apply the same pressures as for a for profit.

An obvious issue to address is the cost: huge endowments would be needed to fund a large national newspaper. ProPublica has annual operating costs of around $10 million, which supports a staff of only 28. To support a newspaper such as the New York Times, you would need a $5 billion endowment, according to Swenson and Schmidt, or $2 billion for the Washington Post, according to Coll. Steiger's response was "how many people are there who have $5 billion to step up and set up an endowment, even for a wonderful property like the New York Times?"

"How many people are there who have $5 billion to step up and set up an endowment, even for a wonderful property like the New York Times?"

And he has a point. For a start, there is the question of what news is worthy to fund. Investigative reporting such as ProPublica's is one thing: asking people to fund journalism in the public interest seems a reasonable request.  Finding people to fund an entire newspaper - including sections such as entertainment, sport and crosswords  - seems harder. Steiger does, however, see some future for non-profit newsgathering. "I do think that it's possible that non-profit operations can play an expanded role and can fill in some of the gaps. But can the concept turn around a fundamental destruction of the basic business model of metro newspapers? No it can't." This is true: non-profit journalism is a way to prop-up existing structures, but will only make newspapers dependent on outsiders rather than encourage them to develop new ways to survive on their own. It does seem that many of the arguments for endowments are to ensure that newspapers not only survive, but survive just as they are now. Maybe this is the wrong way, maybe in fact they need to change.

Maybe newspapers need to change more fundamentally?

Jack Shafer makes the valid point that the capitalist system is what allowed the great newspapers to achieve success in the first place. "The Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal earned their reputations by competing in the marketplace, not by stroking philanthropic billionaires or foundations," he argues. Their dynamism and adaptability allowed them to gain their dominant positions in the market; to remove the financial impetus for such growth could have a detrimental effect on their innovation and efficacy in news distribution. It would also, crucially, change the way that they measure their success: an increased focus on story impact could be a positive outcome but this is not relevant for many types of news.

Newspapers need to change and develop, as they have over many years, in terms of what they cover, how they cover it, and how they reach their audience. The Internet has truly revolutionised the way people follow the news, and endowments should not be a means to stifle necessary change that should follow. Other strategies must also be investigated, such as an industry-wide decision to implement payment for online news. But for now, if newspapers are to function effectively, whether in print or online, as a crucial part of a democratic state, they need to find a way in which they can maintain sufficient staff and resources. Maybe a partially-funded model is the solution, at least in the short term: whereby the arguably more democratically valuable reporting is supported and protected by an endowment, leaving the papers to find a way to make up the rest of the revenue needed for other reporting and further costs. And hopefully out of these endeavours a new more durable business model could emerge. At least for the immediate future, there is an organisation like ProPublica to provide vital proactive investigative journalism to the American public.

The Columbian Journalism Review asks the question: If newsrooms are in a state of financial woes, will investigative journalism, which is expensive and time-consuming, survive?

While bigger papers are holding onto it, regional and local papers are finding it difficult to do so.

Investigative reporter Loretta Tofani conducted a freelance investigation of hazardous Chinese labor practices, which was rejected by three papers before The Salt Lake Tribune picked it up. Because The Tribune could not afford its own investigative work, Tofani had to finance her whole investigation on her own. "It was very difficult doing [the Tribune story] as a freelancer. I'm not sure if I would do that again," said Tofani.

Though finding papers to publish investigative reports is not easy, investigative journalism is not giving up yet. The Goldsmith Prize for Investigative Reporting attracted 120 entries this year, a number that is consistent with past years.

Also, Paul E. Steiger, former Wall Street Journal managing editor, heads ProPublica, a nonprofit, non partisan investigative journalism project that hopes to be the "best financed shop for investigative journalism."

Investigative journalism is a valuable form of journalism because it "is one of the things [investigative reporters are] able to make a difference in that not everyone else can," according to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest.

Source: MediaChannel.org