So, I know you were editor at the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times, but you were also the website editor at Northwestern University’s Medill? In my best Chicago accent: dat’s a mighty impressive resume you got dere!
I was *an* editor at the Tribune and Sun-Times. Not *the* editor. Highest rank at the Trib was metro editor and at the Sun-Times, Sunday editor. Both high-ranking but not top editor.
Mark, may I humbly suggest that the nonprofit model is the way to go in order to ensure editorial independence. I would hold The Guardian up as an example of a major international newspaper that is wholly owned and operated by a trust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited) that was set up to ensure the paper's independence in perpetuity.
Even enlightened individual owners are, of necessity, going to have other irons in the fire.
Nonprofit models have worked in urban areas like Chicago that have a lot of philanthropists, but that leaves many rural areas. Getting news consumers to become contributing "members" is a challenge, but seems necessary for valuable nonprofit news to survive.
Well, Hearst whipped up fervor in his papers for a with Spain in the 1890s....and he was rich....
Keep in mind many community newspapers were owned by the rich and powerful in their communities --like Col. McCormick in Chicago -- and quality journalism was left to their good graces. The editor/publisher of my hometown paper made a major contribution to American literature in 1908 by firing a "radical" editorial writer named Sinclair Lewis. In fact, Mr. Lewis cited the dismissal in a 1930 interview after receiving his Nobel Prize for literature.
The more apposite question might be “can millionaires survive journalism”? As posed, the question doesn't apply to journalism in any meaningful way, but simply to one branch of it, the legacy media. Even in a dectatorship, journals of resistance exist. If billionaires do kill off the legacy media, so much the better. As Substack is already proving, what comes next (independent, fact-driven reporting) is far more effective. And ultimate, far more dangerous to the billionaires too.
I would argue that non-profits are not necessarily the answer, either, because they are also subject to shifts in economic conditions, donor preferences, changing performance metrics, and the whims of their boards. Becoming a non-profit forces newsrooms to undertake highly competitive and time-consuming tasks like responding to grant applications and learning how to maintain a different form of tax records, thus diverting resources from their core mission of reporting the news. It can also be emotionally draining on those who apply for grants but are unsuccessful.
Here's my question for you, Mark. If another model provided editorial independence, was more (small "d") democratic and was economically sustainable in the long term, would you be interested in learning more about it? If it made sense, what would you be willing to do to help?
So, I know you were editor at the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times, but you were also the website editor at Northwestern University’s Medill? In my best Chicago accent: dat’s a mighty impressive resume you got dere!
I was *an* editor at the Tribune and Sun-Times. Not *the* editor. Highest rank at the Trib was metro editor and at the Sun-Times, Sunday editor. Both high-ranking but not top editor.
I’m still very impressed
Mark, may I humbly suggest that the nonprofit model is the way to go in order to ensure editorial independence. I would hold The Guardian up as an example of a major international newspaper that is wholly owned and operated by a trust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited) that was set up to ensure the paper's independence in perpetuity.
Even enlightened individual owners are, of necessity, going to have other irons in the fire.
Nonprofit models have worked in urban areas like Chicago that have a lot of philanthropists, but that leaves many rural areas. Getting news consumers to become contributing "members" is a challenge, but seems necessary for valuable nonprofit news to survive.
Well, Hearst whipped up fervor in his papers for a with Spain in the 1890s....and he was rich....
Keep in mind many community newspapers were owned by the rich and powerful in their communities --like Col. McCormick in Chicago -- and quality journalism was left to their good graces. The editor/publisher of my hometown paper made a major contribution to American literature in 1908 by firing a "radical" editorial writer named Sinclair Lewis. In fact, Mr. Lewis cited the dismissal in a 1930 interview after receiving his Nobel Prize for literature.
I submit that it already has not. I give you president trump.
It hasn’t so far.
The more apposite question might be “can millionaires survive journalism”? As posed, the question doesn't apply to journalism in any meaningful way, but simply to one branch of it, the legacy media. Even in a dectatorship, journals of resistance exist. If billionaires do kill off the legacy media, so much the better. As Substack is already proving, what comes next (independent, fact-driven reporting) is far more effective. And ultimate, far more dangerous to the billionaires too.
No! https://open.substack.com/pub/publicenlightenment/p/introducing-tricked-podcast-your?r=2xd80&utm_medium=ios
I would argue that non-profits are not necessarily the answer, either, because they are also subject to shifts in economic conditions, donor preferences, changing performance metrics, and the whims of their boards. Becoming a non-profit forces newsrooms to undertake highly competitive and time-consuming tasks like responding to grant applications and learning how to maintain a different form of tax records, thus diverting resources from their core mission of reporting the news. It can also be emotionally draining on those who apply for grants but are unsuccessful.
Here's my question for you, Mark. If another model provided editorial independence, was more (small "d") democratic and was economically sustainable in the long term, would you be interested in learning more about it? If it made sense, what would you be willing to do to help?
Nonprofits are not perfect or complete solution but definitely can play a useful part. Same with government funding.
In all cases, governance structure is important. Happy to hear other ideas and support good ones.
They can -- if you're successful. Therein lies the rub.
I'd be happy to discuss with you (or anyone) what we're doing at N2. You can read about it here: https://n2.news. You can email me at todd @...