David Swensen, the chief investment officer at Yale, writes in the New York Times in support of the newspaper as a non-profit institute.

His argument is manifold: it would liberate papers from their challenged business models, provide tax advantages to encourage public participation in their financing, ensure the transition to digital is more survivable, and insulate journalists from the pressures of advertisers and stockholders.

The real challenge is the amount of money raised. To run the New York Times editorial operation alone, $5 billion in endowments would be required. (The op-ed piece from Swensen seems only to deal with newsgathering expenses, which of course are not anywhere near the operating costs of a news operation.)

As uncomfortable as many journalists are in the philanthropic model, particularly when a small number of supporters are involved, in the U.S. the idea is taking root.

 


Comments

Truthy
01/28/2009 18:22

The thing is, if you're not beholden to the idea of dead tree delivery, you can ditch print entirely, take the investigative journalism model online, and then your only real costs are newsgathering and hardware/bandwidth.
And as the Huffington Post has shown, that can work. All the print world really brings an online outlet is prestige and costs.

Reply
01/28/2009 22:51

Well, they aren't your only costs. There is marketing, for one. And newsgathering and technical backbone are quite expensive to do right. You couldn't just do investigative, either. You need other types of journalism to drive a large enough audience to gain revenue support.

And HuffPost isn't yet proving a business case. It is drawing traffic, but its advertising isn't driving profit.

That print thingy still drives more than 95% of our revenue. Not time to kill it at all. Business model is an issue, but not audience in the way some think.

Reply

Comments are closed.

DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058