Traditional Media Falters While Non-Profit Journalism Grows

The shuttering of magazine stalwart Gourmet is just the latest indication that the traditional for-profit media sector is losing its footing -- and its funding. But it's clear the nonprofit public-interest news movement has arrived. It's finally attracted enough money to draw fire from media critics.

Warren Hellman, a San Francisco fixture often described as a "billionaire financier," recently announced a $5 million contribution to the Bay Area News Project, a nonprofit that would involve the public radio station KQED-FM, the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, a number of reporters yet to be hired and, perhaps, the New York Times in producing and presenting quality local and regional journalism that Internet- and recession-bashed newspapers can no longer afford. East Bay Express blogger Robert Gammon quickly bemoaned the supposed edge that free UC Berkeley journalism students will give Hellman's effort: "The massive free-labor workforce will give the new venture a huge advantage over established Bay Area media organizations that depend on paid, veteran journalists..."

Another new nonprofit, the Texas Tribune, also has the brief of providing quality public-interest news; headed by former Texas Monthly editor/publisher Evan Smith, it recently announced $750,000 in grant funding from the Knight Foundation and the Houston Endowment to go along with millions of dollars in other donations. Houston Press blogger Rich Connelly immediately took the yet-to-launch Tribune to the woodshed for accepting $500,000 from the endowment, because once upon a time, when it owned the Houston Chronicle, it was infamous for the number of sacred cows it kept on range.

Meanwhile, the accomplished nonprofit investigative Web site ProPublica - already funded with $30 million from Marion and Herbert Sandler of San Francisco -- was reported to be aggressively expanding its donor base with consultants hired via a foundation grant. Echoing media bloggers who'd raised the issue, the New York Times' David Carr noted that ProPublica editor Paul Steiger makes $570,000 a year, "more than the head of the MacArthur Foundation, which has $5 billion in assets ... and more than the head of the Soros Foundation, which has almost $1.5 billion in assets under control."

The commentary on these nonprofit developments was refreshingly pointed, given the gooing and gaaing that had constituted a lot of recent reporting on nonprofit news. Regardless of business model, news organizations are fair game for scrutiny, and the ethics worries raised are interesting and, to some degree, worthy of thought. But only to a degree; most of the new nonprofits are still relatively quite small. For the nonprofits to provide a real bridge between the dying world of print press and a future new media environment that financially supports in-depth journalism, they will have to figure out how to grow beyond their initial bursts of funding.

My experience with two nonprofit magazines - one that's lasted for decades, and a promising two-year-old toddler called Miller-McCune magazine - demonstrates that what sustains a not-for-profit magazine is a balanced approach to revenue that includes advertising, subscriptions, charitable donations and, as goody-goody as it may sound, a real belief that the journalism being done is important, and would not be done otherwise.

John Mecklin is the editor in chief of Miller-McCune magazine

 

 

Comments

[sonny12]

Mecklin's point is confused. He seems to be saying that because bloggers have discussed some non-profit journalism groups, that legitimizes the groups. First off, just because the groups claim to be operating in the public interest does not mean that they are. The light critiques he mentions don't constitute scrutiny. One fellow raised concerns about the Hellman efforts and another blogger, he says, had some concerns about sources of funding.
And the financially bloated Pro Publica web site received a tiny bit of attention because its chief, Paul Steiger, sucked up almost $600,0000 in one year, a huge chunk of its sole source funding, while he talked about "the public interest."
It is great that some wealthy people are donating money to some tax-exempt journalistic enterprises. No doubt.
But stop claiming it is a revolution.

[Merlin7]

The mainstream media seem incapable of anything except the most obvious observations, and even those are usually couched in the timidity of business people dependent on corporate advertisers. And the influence of the corporate establishment on the MSM is downright alarming. Consider their near-shameless chearleading of our unnecessary wars or their profound disinterest in certain topics, such as waste and corruption in defense spending, which is now at stupefying levels. Indeed, you don't need to watch the TV news anymore. You know exactly what the anchors will say, exactly what the talking-head commentators will say, exactly what the usually featured politicians will say and exactly how much useful information will be provided -- very little. The future of America now rests with its bloggers and online journalists.

[alexa07]

I could not agree with you more, Merlin! What passes for "international news" from AP-dependent newspapers, bought out news maggies, any of the mainstream broadcast or cable networks, even PBS, just does not inform a person reliably about anything that goes on in the world, much less the conflict regions. I also deeply resented the run-up to the Iraq war; how both Afghanistan & Iran are currently being covered & how the siege of Gaza is NOT being covered! Of course, I have discontinued any number of my subscriptions. I rely on my computer & satellite foreign news.