Senator's Solution To Dying Newspapers: Become A Non-Profit
from the lifeline-or-anchor? dept
With many newspapers struggling to stay in business, a lot of ideas have been tossed around about how to keep existing papers alive. One idea, which has reached the US Senate in the form of a bill introduced by Senator Benjamin Cardin, is to allow newspapers to operate as non-profits, which would exempt them from taxes on subscription and advertising revenue, while also allowing them to raise funds via donations, similar to how public broadcasting companies operate. This approach would seem to have many potential issues. First of all, to qualify for the program, a paper would no longer be allowed publish editorial endorsements. This could have the twin effect of chilling editorial commentary in support of or against various candidates' positions, and driving more bias into the reporting. It would also put the government in charge of what could or could not show up in a paper's editorial pages. Second, to be successful, the papers would be heavily dependent on donations, which could raise questions about objectivity. But the biggest problem with this approach is that it simply props up a failing business model, rather than forcing the newspapers to adjust to the new realities of the marketplace. In the senators own words:
"We are losing our newspaper industry," Cardin said. "The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.
Whether the loss of newspapers (as opposed to journalism) is a tragedy "for our democracy" is certainly debatable. But the senator is right about the business model being broken. And if that's the case, wouldn't it be wiser to experiment with new, better models, rather than put the old one on life support?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: benjamin cardin, newspapers, non-profits
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTH? *confusion*
Wouldn't this instantly trash The Constitution's passage of "freedom of the press"?
Makes no sense when a senator then spews "and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy."
Looks like we have either an ignorant senator or an ignorant system in place for "non-profit" organizations.
Someone please enlighten (educate) me as I feel I'm the only one seeing this hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTH? *confusion*
Nowadays its just a tax shelter.
(and for the record, NPR is a non-profit and does OUTSTANDING GOOD for our democracy, so its not like the two are mutually exclusive)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: WTH? *confusion*
Even if the newspapers were free for the taking, I just wouldn't bother, mainly because I don't have any fish entrails to wrap, or bird cage bottoms to line. It would go straight to a land-fill, which is where it rightly belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: WTH? *confusion*
It's just political endorsements, which papers only make a few times a year. It wouldn't mean papers can't editorialize, it just means they wouldn't be able to say "We endorse John Smith," but they'd still be able to write about why he's a better candidate.
And I wouldn't say this would prop up a new model. It would force papers to adopt a pretty different model, one that includes a different revenue stream.
As for bias, well, why would the paper be any more biased toward donation makers than they are towards advertisers. So whatever your opinion towards a paper's bias (and as someone who works at one, there isn't any in the day-to-day writing) it shouldn't change just because the money comes from a company's charity budget and not its advertising budget.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Objectivity
So the current (failing) model of relying on masses of corporate advertising *doesn't* raise questions about objectivity?
Whether Global MegaCorp places ads or donates heavily it would still skew the editorial line somewhat. No change there then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Fallacy of an Objective Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Fallacy of an Objective Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like they're "objective" now? So let me get this straight...certain churches risk losing non-profit status for expressing "political" opinion that doesn't jive with the Washington establishment's ideas of "correct thought", but we're going to give clearly biased newspapers that can't maintain their circulation, non-profit status?
Does this mean the newspapers would be subject to the McCain-Feingold Act in the same way the producers of the documentary on Hillary Clinton now are? Unlikely. This is just another way to get the taxpayers to bailout failing Liberal institutions - much in the same way new calls for the "fairness doctrine" will eventually be used to bailout failing left wing radio shows like Air America.
Still laughing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha ha
I've never actually laughed at work. Thank you for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspaper Dilemma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is this idea "putting an old business model on life support?"
Seems to me that the content restrictions would force newspapers to begin to operate more like ISPs under the Communications Decency Act. One way to the newspapers' lawyers will use to avoid problems would be disclaiming authorship of editorial content and use content provided by public figures, freelancers and independent contractors--more or less providing a platform or forum for voices independent of the newspaper.
Looks to me like this could be the new, better business model you are advocating Michael. It certainly doesn't preclude any other innovatins like focusing on serving communities or communities of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Objectivity
And as for the business model, yes, they would be dependent on a different revenue stream, but the point of this plan is to allow them to continue to operate in basically the same way, offering a product that fewer and fewer people want to read, rather than adapting to the changing marketplace. Exempting revenue from taxes is just a band-aid that does nothing to address the fundamental problem with the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Objectivity
Additionally, non-profit doesn't actually mean they can't make money. It simply means they are "owned" by the public and receive certain benefits for being a public good. Besides, do we really want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Middle and lower newspaper management has almost always been at odds with upper management. Those who run the day to day operations of a paper have a better feel for what the public wants and needs, and many of them will have great ideas that the upper eschalon would have poopooed because of cost. A non-profit has the option of getting donations to fund new programs and ideas that may be extremely valuable but not profitable. Non-profit newspapers may be the only way to get good investigative journalism to the fore where it belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid
"Senator's Solution..."
What else would a politician say? Do you actually think they'd say "Deal with it, you have to learn to compete like everyone else out there. No hand outs for you or special privileges."? No way, this is the government, and all they know how to do is mess up the economy by making stupid, anti capitalist decisions.
The author of this article is right on the money when he warns that the newspapers would be much more susceptible to bias based on who's donating to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newspapers with always thrive
Having government controlled news is most assuredly NOT the solution. At that point it is no longer news but propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On objectivity
As it is now the papers are heavily dependent on advertising revenue, this raises more questions about the newspapers' objectivity and editorial freedom than if a non-partisan government agency (not unlike the BBC) was to fund the newspapers in a non-profit model. Standing aside and letting the markets decimate the newspaper industry is most certainly not in the nation's best interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]