Alms for the Press?The case against foundation ownership of the New York Times.
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:51 PM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThis is not to say that such nonprofits as ProPublica ("journalism in the public interest"), the Center for Public Integrity ("Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest"), the Center for Independent Media ("independent online news network in the public interest"), the Center for Investigative Reporting ("Journalism dedicated to revealing injustice since 1977"), and others haven't published fine work. I know firsthand from working on the nonprofit magazine Inquiry that nonprofits are capable of creating excellent journalism.
The idea of the Times or Post ceding the commercial sphere for nonprofit aerie in which only democracy-nourishing journalism gets published gives me the willies. The Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal earned their reputations by competing in the marketplace, not by stroking philanthropic billionaires or foundations in what my colleague Adrian Monck calls the "holy search for 'enlightened' money."
The impulse to preserve the best of the American daily newspaper is a laudable one, and it's almost sensible if you can do it with other people's money. But the foundation ploy ignores the reasons why big-city dailies have been dying a slow and profitable death since the advent of AM radio: wave after wave of new competition (TV, FM, cable, the Internet, smartphones, et al.), changes in commuting habits, changes in reader habits, changes in advertising strategies, changes in entertainment habits, the decline of the department store (an advertising mainstay), and the erosion of the classified market. As if that isn't bad enough, in the current downturn many car dealers, car makers, members of the real estate/finance complex, and banks—advertising pillars all—have stopped buying column inches.
The plans to "save" the Times and Post by rescuing their newsrooms from commercial pressure by sticking them inside protective domes strike me as conservative and futile. The market for news—and for ads—is trying to tell them it wants them to transmogrify into something new or, in the worst-case scenario, something gone. Turning any newspaper over to rich historic preservationists only postpones solving the problem of what newspapers need to be in the 21st century.
******
I'd rather see Rupert Murdoch publish the New York Times than see it turned over to a foundation, and that's saying a lot. Send your best newspaper salvation ideas to . (E-mail may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers' forum; in a future article; or elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)
Track my errors: This hand-built RSS feed will ring every time Slate runs a "Press Box" correction. For e-mail notification of errors in this specific column, type the word foundation in the subject head of an e-mail message, and send it to .
Saletan: House Democrats Traded Abortion Rights for a Health Reform Bill
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Remarks from the Fray
It has been surreal to follow the debate that has unfolded in recent weeks on the subject of endowing news organizations -- as if this is a new idea.
NPR employs more than 400 journalists in 36 bureaus - 17 of them overseas. We produce and distribute more than a dozen hours of original news programming every day. Our audience is healthy, stable and growing. We have won just about every journalism prize in the book.
And, we are non-commercial and not-for-profit. NPR is supported by philanthropists, grants, corporate sponsorship, and by our member stations. (They are funded similarly, and well as by millions of listeners nationwide). Our endowment was formed in 1993 and stands at $205 million. We are the living, breathing prototype of the kind of operation David Swenson, Steve Coll, Jack Shafer and others are imagining – and imagining to be revolutionary.
So let me inject some reality into the debate:
First, the notion that non-commercial status and an endowment is protection from a bad economy is nonsense. Our endowment has shrunk like all endowments, making it difficult - though not impossible - to draw from. Our donors are also feeling the economic pressure; corporate sponsors, even more so. We cut 7% of our staff in December. And we will likely need to find other ways to cut our budget before this is over. If you're looking for a magic bullet – you won't find it.
Second, I take exception to Shafer's contention that philanthropy-supported journalism inevitably leads to compromise. NPR has been around for more than 38 years with no such degradation. There has been no case in our history of undue influence from a donor. Our structure and governance protects us from that. Neither the NPR Board of Directors, nor the NPR Foundation Trustees have any authority to direct our news coverage. The News Division reports to the CEO, who serves as a firewall. Listeners and philanthropists give to NPR precisely because they want to protect our independence and integrity. That is our inviolable pact with our audience.
Third, Shafer worries that an organization with an endowment and board means there's no one to yell at. Fear not – we get yelled at just as much as every other news organization. Our governance has not dissuaded our listeners from letting us know when they hear or read something they don't like; and they do so with the zeal of the owners that they are. Where is that yelling directed? You name it – to me, to our Ombudsman, to individual reporters, to the head of news, to our stations. We are all accountable and we take that seriously. Our non-commercial status does not insulate us from criticism – nor should it.
Lastly, Shafer concludes that non-commercial status inevitably leads to over-earnest (read: boring!) coverage. Our supporters don't want to hear dull coverage and our reporters have no interest in force-feeding broccoli to our listeners and online readers. It is possible to be not-for-profit, comprehensive and journalistically excellent, without losing the ability to tell a good story that will interest the audience. And our 26 million weekly listeners seem to agree.
--Vschiller
Vivian Schiller
President and CEO, NPR
To read more, click here.