Is non-profit an option for newspapers?

Posted by Emma Heald on June 8, 2009 at 10:07 AM

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.

One problem with hoping that a rich individual or family will take on a paper, says Kinsley, is that "earlier grandees made money from newspapers" and anyone who takes a paper on now needs to realise that this might not happen immediately. There are, however, people who are still eager to do this. He suggests motives include a "sincere concern to preserve an important institution, a desire to influence the political debate, a misplaced belief that better management could make the thing profitable, hunger for status" amongst others. When Kinsley was editor of the New Republic, owned by Marty Peretz and family, he was impressed by Peretz's "indifference to what other people might think," adding that there is "no better protection for press freedom."

The best solution, however, is one that is hard to find, he regrets: "to be a flyspeck on the balance sheet of a large company with other things on its mind." He points to his time as editor of Slate as an example of this. It was then owned by Microsoft (and now by the Washington Post Co) and the company never interfered with content, and supported the publication adequately. Kinsley believes that this was partly because Slate was "too small to bother with" but mainly because "as unsentimental business types they knew that interfering would destroy the value they were investing millions to create."

There has been growing debate in the US Senate and elsewhere over whether newspapers could survive as nonprofits, inspired not least by the success of investigative journalism outfits such as ProPublica. The plusses of being a non-profit are clear: a paper would be protected from market pressures and would not have to make sacrifices in order to make a profit. The most commonly discussed downsides are that a paper would have to refrain from endorsing political candidates, that it would be dependent on the wishes of its board, and that market pressure is in fact beneficial. It is unlikely to become a general solution for newspapers simply because of the huge sums of money involved, but possibly foundations could support the more worthy arms of a newspaper, such as investigative reporting.

Source: Washington Post