[MGP-Forum Announce] Is it better to build, not buy, metro news organizat...

[steve at coanews.org]

I pretty much agree with what Mark said in his post - we just recently  
exchanged some emails on this very issue.

My thought is that The Newstandard (http://newstandardnews.net/) is a  
living model of the ideal.  They are non-profit and completely member  
funded. No foundations, no advertisers, no underwriting, no for-profit  
anything.  They are definately struggling though, so Mark is right  
about it being imperative that it is desired by people etc... It's  
hard to get a large and sustainable audience without some serious  
money to turn out quality material. Perhaps Truthout which is mostly  
funded by members is a more successful example (although they have  
accepted a few small grants recently).

I agree with Mark that some non-profits fail, and that internal fights  
happen.  That said I do think taking that privatized profit interest  
out of the equation  is a good thing - I don't really see a down side  
to being non-profit if you are not interested in making money.

I can see the point with funders still having too much power, but I  
think having an organization with a non-profit, public interest  
mandate, and ideally having funders with the same mandate- is overall  
a good thing.

Again, for me it's ideal to maximize the power and role of individual  
members/citizens. I understand growing the power of member funding is  
difficult but to me it's a battle worth fighting.  I personally  
believe that part of media education should be encouraging citizens to  
fund non-profit media.  Probably equally as important is fighting for  
some kind of independent trust derived from government sources and  
levies that would go to funding independent non-profit media.  I've  
heard of the idea of having a leavy on TV's or making part of the  
licensing fees corporations pay for using to public airwaves go  
towards such a independent trust.  -It's an ideas who's time has come  
in my opinion.

What Mark and I agree on - I'll repeat here:

"An ideal media landscape is a diverse, pluralistic one. We know that  
the corporate media system has many limitations, and having this  
system overwhelmingly dominate what we hear, see, and read calls for a  
rejuvenation of all forms of independent media."  (for-profit  
independent media included)

Steve


Quoting Markkarlin at aol.com:

>
> In a message dated 10/28/2006 9:14:15 AM Central Standard Time,
> steve at coanews.org writes:
>
> I think  building new community news organizations is usually the way
> to go,  but it
> depends on the situation.  But I think it is important that  they be
> non-profit
> incorporated, as we have seen what has happened to  for-profit
> alternative daily
> newspapers - they have been bought  up by one corporation, and in many
> cases that
> corporation has  removed the unprofitable local content that was once
> available.
>
> Being non-profit also means that one person or group of  people won't
> be creating a
> community website in order to create a  golden egg for later in life =
> selling out when
> the time is  right.
>
> Sustainable long term community media should be non-profit and  independent.
>
> -I do still respect community media projects that are  for-profit (I
> think coastsider.com
> falls in this category), but I  do not think it is the long term
> solution to our
> privatized media  system.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Steve
>
> Quoting Bill Densmore  <densmore at densmoreassociates.com>:
>
>
> Steve and I have discussed this and I think there are room for both  models.
>
> The reality is if you look at non-profit media, it also too often  fails.
> Look at what happened to non-profit FM classical stations.   Look at what
> happened to the fight over Pacifica.
>
> I've also been witness to many non-profit boards in advocacy areas fight
> over whether they were going to go centrist or be more aggressive -- and this
> split the boards apart.
>
> Also, non-profit media is still responsible to funders. If a major funder
> indicates that they don't like the direction that the non-profit   
> media project
> is going, they can pull the rug out from under the project.  In short, the
> same issues of compromise occur in non-profits as in for-profits,   
> only they are
> a bit different in terms of why they occur.
>
> I will rest my case with what has happened to NPR and PBS in America.   Yes,
> there is a government component to those two entities, but the issue  extends
> far beyond that and includes their major non-government funders.
>
> Non-profit status is no guarantee of purity or sustainability.  You  still h
> ave to kow tow to funders, who although they don't make a profit, are  still
> stakeholders, even if not shareholders.
>
> There's also the issue that there is limited non-profit money.   Utlimately,
> the new media is going to have to prove its value in the  marketplace. It is
> going to have to be desired by people.  They are going  to have to   
> monetize it
> one way or the other.
>
> Mark Karlin
> Editor and Publisher
> BuzzFlash.com
>