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

Mon Oct 30 23:53:38 CST 2006

I don't feel that foundation funding has all that many strings  
attached to it - although it certainly can.

Ranking ownership models is a good idea - here's mine.

1. Non-profit mostly membership funded ownership

2. Non-profit foundation/advertising funded ownership

3. Non-profit Institutional ownership (University Ownership) - I need  
to learn more about this and how it works in practice.

4. Co-op ownership - for profit

5. Small/local independent for-profit private ownership LLC

6. Public Ownership - operated at arms length

10. Publicly traded corporate ownership

My ranking is based on which models have less structural bias/filters,  
and which ones have a public interest mandate.  I'm generally ok with  
all the models apart from public corporations, which clearly doesn't  
work.

Steve

Quoting Bill Densmore <mediagiraffe at journ.umass.edu>:

>
> 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
>