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

[Martin Langeveld]

>>Densmore writes " NGO/community/foundation ownership could be ***worse***
for journalism than corporate ownership if it enforces a "don't rock the
boat" mentality."  With the implication that corporate ownership is, ipso
facto, bad.

Well, just a note of protest here that corporate ownership does not, by
definition, create bad journalism.  Only bad management results in bad
"product", whether it's journalism or pretzels.  Bad management can occur at
privately owned media, publicly-owned media, non-profit-owned media,
co-op-owned media, or anything else you can dream up, not just if it
enforces a "don't rock the boat" mentality, but for many other reasons.

A look at the Pulitzer prize winners each year will show you fabulous
journalism that for the most part is produced at "big bad" corporate-owned
media.  Certainly, those same media produce some of the worst journalism, as
well, but perhaps that's because they actually **don't** have a "don't rock
the boat" mentality, but take some risks and sometimes miss.

________________________________________________
Martin C. Langeveld
Publisher, Brattleboro Reformer - www.Reformer.com 
62 Black Mountain Rd., P. O. Box 802, Brattleboro, VT 05302
802-254-2311 Ext. 101; mlangeveld at reformer.com
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: post-bounces at mgp-forum.org [mailto:post-bounces at mgp-forum.org] On
Behalf Of Bill Densmore
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 4:28 PM
To: post at mgp-forum.org
Subject: Re: [MGP-Forum Announce] Sustaining, organizing news organizations
of the future


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

_______________________________________________
Post mailing list
Post at mgp-forum.org
http://mgp-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/post_mgp-forum.org