[MGP-Forum Announce] Sustaining, organizing news organizations of the future

[Bill Densmore]

Lisa (and list):

Yup, you're right about a potential downside of "community" ownership -- where does the buck stop when there is a controversial investigative project that is going to ruffle some powerful feathers. In that sense, NGO/community/foundation ownership could be ***worse*** for journalism than corporate ownership if it enforces a "don't rock the boat" mentality. If I were to rank ownership options here's how I'd do it:

1) Private/individual/family ownership where the owner
    is in it in large measure for the thrill of journalism.

2) Foundation/non-profit ownership where there is leadership
    in some way empowered to act independently.

3) Co-op ownership (untested but worth a try)

4) Multi-market ownership group, privately held

6) Public ownership (TV/radio owned by universities)

5) Public-stock owner

What other options are there?

-- bill

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006, Lisa Williams wrote:

> In my previous message I spoke in support of community ownership models, but 
> I do have reservations about them. One thing that makes me, personally, wary 
> of some of the community participation/board member models is stuff like 
> this:
>
> http://www.greensboro101.com/feature/display/16617/index.php
>
> Roch Smith, who runs Greensboro101.com, makes what I think is the right 
> decision to publish a report detailing corruption and mismanagement in the 
> police department -- a report paid for by public tax dollars -- and four of 
> his "advisory board" members immediately resign.  Is the point of a board so 
> that they can resign in protest the minute things get a little hot? 
> Community organization may provide better chances for survival once the 
> founder exits or dies, since unlike a for-profit business there may not be as 
> much pressure to find (or fail to find) a new buyer.  But community sites 
> (and newspapers) depend so much on the verve of an individual editorial 
> voice.  We've all seen the lousy effects of blandification of local papers 
> stemming from chain ownership and the management by committee disasters of 
> nonprofits. At H2otown I have the luxury and the freedom to maneuver to keep 
> the site interesting, without wasting precious time and resources worrying 
> about whether it's going to be okay with a boss or a board -- which is 
> fitting since I'm doing the work.
>
> And work is got to be where the authority comes from:  we might like to think 
> that community worthies of one sort or another will make good board members, 
> but the sad fact is they may not.  The best people to assume more 
> responsibility at a community news organization are the people who come out 
> of the woodwork and start writing for it because they enjoy doing it -- they 
> have the right motivations.   It's very infrequent that they're people who 
> are well known in town. The future belongs to the Nobodies.
>
> Lisa W.
>
>
>
> Bill Densmore wrote:
>> I'm picking up on the discussion to which Jeff Jarvis, Lisa Williams, Steve 
>> Anderson and others have contributed. It has morphed from "Is it Better to 
>> Build, Not Buy a Metro News Organization" and I have retitled it. 
>> I agree with Jeff that advertising is one of the legs on which the future 
>> of news depends. For nine years my wife and I published two 
>> free-circulation weeklies in Berkshire County. We struggled -- and I think 
>> largely succeeded -- to do quality journalism without benefit of 
>> circulation revenue. It was tough. On the other hand, no single advertiser 
>> represented more than 3% of our revenues. And so there was really no single 
>> person or entity who had the ability to exert pressure on us, by threat of 
>> withdrawing advertising, over any single story. In a general sense we were 
>> dependent on the retail and business community and so our coverage had to 
>> be in the broadest sense supportive of free enterprise. But within that 
>> range there was lots of room for feisty, independent reporting -- and we 
>> did it. I think the great strength of America's newspapers in the late 20th 
>> century was that they had diversified revenues from both advertising and 
>> circulation. Where they got into trouble was relying too heavily on 
>> advertising and not enough on circulation. No less than Al Neuharth, 
>> (http://www.newshare.com/news/FCC_family_newspapers.html) the former CEO of 
>> Gannett and founder of USA Today, warned about this years ago in urging 
>> papers to raise the cover price of their products. 
>> I think Lisa's point about ownership and incentives is also important. Some 
>> of the most enduring organizations in our culture are not-for-profits. She 
>> mentions some. Another example -- parent-teacher organizations. Leadership 
>> changes and morphs as your children grow. But in many communities these 
>> informal, "chaordic" (chaos-order) groups endure. 
>> And so I'm drawn to notion that we want to find an OWNERSHIP model which, 
>> as Steve points out, isn't dependent on the "exit strategy" payoff for the 
>> owner, but rather upon a sustained relationship with members/owners/users 
>> that creates ongoing value -- and financial surplus whether from 
>> advertising, circulation, membership, donations, or service income -- and 
>> ideally all five. It should be chartered with a mission that has to do with 
>> fostering participatory democracy and community. The intent to make a 
>> surplus of revenue over expenses is merely a method to achieve the 
>> objective.
>> 
>> As for REVENUE models, noted three sentences above, the more "legs" on this 
>> stool the better, and the more diversified the better. 
>> For the last few years, I've wondered if the "co-op" model of organization 
>> might make sense for news organizations of the future. Many of us probably 
>> live in communities which support food co-operatives. In our small town, 
>> there's one that is running well enough now that it is building annual 
>> surpluses, and it is looking at other businesses to consider entering which 
>> might nuture and sustain and community just as does nutritional, locally 
>> grown food. Many parts of the nation have thriving credit unions, which are 
>> essentially member-owned banks. There are still active agriculture co-ops 
>> in the Midwest. Even TrueValue Hardware (http://www.truserv.com/home/) is a 
>> co-op. So are The Associated Press and, as to governance, Visa 
>> International Service Corp. 
>> (http://www.globalhome.com/news/chaordic/bookreview.html) I'd like to see 
>> exploration of this model for the future of news.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Post mailing list
>> Post at mgp-forum.org
>> http://mgp-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/post_mgp-forum.org
>> 
>> 
>
>

-- 
-------------------------------------
Bill Densmore, director/editor
The Media Giraffe Project 
Journalism Program / 108 Bartlett Hall 
Univ. of Massachusetts 
Amherst MA 01003 
OFF: 413-577-4370 / CELL: 413-458-8001
densmore at journ.umass.edu

DID YOU MISS: "Democracy and Independence:
          Sharing News and Politics in a Connected World"?
 	 June 29-July 1, 2006

WHAT WAS IT?
http://www.mediagiraffe.org/conference/

WHO WAS THERE:
http://www.mediagiraffe.org/wiki/index.php/Participants

VIDEO OF MANY SESSIONS: 
http://www.mediagiraffe.org/wiki/index.php/Live

WHAT BLOGGERS SAID: 
http://www.mediagiraffe.org/wiki/index.php/Bloggers