Funding Journalism
TAS’s newest contributor, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, writes:
It also shows something that an outlet like The Economist shows: print media that offer true value for money can be profitable, and even very profitable, and remain so for the foreseeable future.
Let’s be even more blunt about what it takes to survive in the media world: You have to have information no one else has. That information has to be information that people need or want. And you probably have to charge people for it.
Conor wants to find out what sort of losses are coming with the decline of journalism. If he can answer that (no small task), my next question is: How much is what we’re losing actually worth?
For most of the last century, at least, the newspaper business has been incredibly successful. And as a result, it’s gotten used to certain luxuries — largely in the form of interesting but inessential news coverage, and, of course, the salaries to pay for it.
Put candidly, there are a lot of journalists out there doing work that doesn’t need to be done, that isn’t worth what it costs to produce.
Perhaps my view is cruelly reductionist. There is some value, of course, in that which isn’t profitable. I’m not sure, for example, that I’ve ever written for a profitable publication. But ideologically driven publications that are more or less designed to lose money and are funded by wealthy backers who have an interest in the publication’s ideas aren’t really the issue here.
Instead, the issue is repetitive reporting across papers, which may have been necessary at one time but isn’t any longer. It’s local-paper beat reporters covering beats that are of value to tiny numbers, and not of interest to wealthy advertisers. It’s reporting that’s designed to fill space rather than inform, provoke, or enlighten enough people — or sell enough advertising — to justify the cost to produce it.
This doesn’t mean I think a lot of interesting but financially inessential journalism should go away. To the contrary! Journalism will need to do a lot of restructuring, and certain types of reporting will fade away. But it strikes me that a big part of the problem is that it’s very difficult for motivated organizations and individuals to contribute financialy to the sort of journalism that interests the. And this is why I believe that the future of journalism looks a lot like the world of non-profit politics: a mix of corporate sponsorship, wealthy backers, and small individual donors supporting missions they believe necessary, or just interesting.
The market for this is young, at best, but twenty-five years ago, the conservative/libertarian non-profit world was tiny, comprised of a handful of understaffed organizations. Now there’s a conservative think tank in nearly every state and more D.C.-based organizations, some with dozens of employees, working on federal issues than I could possibly list. Why did this happen? Because, despite the lack of a traditional market for conservative ideas, they were nonetheless very much in demand from people who had money to give — and they remain so today. Although the rough economy has forced some of these groups to cut back in the short-term, the medium to long-term future for the right-of-center ideas and advocacy industry looks bright. No doubt the model isn’t directly transferable to the news media, but perhaps there are lessons to be learned, and maybe — I hope! — in twenty-five years, I’ll be able to issue a similarly optimistic report on the future of non-profit journalism.
“That information has to be information that people need or want.”
i think time-sensitivity is probably critical hear. that’s why the WSJ can force subscription right? people think that time is $$$, so they pay $, and $$$ – $ = $$. if it is a feature article, you probably will procrastinate on paying, and eventually find a free alternative. you can find the same quality of articles as in the WSJ all over the web, but it takes time to find the articles and collecting information a la carte. so you subscribe so that you don’t have to bother with that, since financial information is going to get “out of date” in a matter of hours (at least for the things you want to do with that information in hand).
p.s. a lot of the stuff about actionable information is probably a load of crap IMO, the “smart money” is pretty retarded if they make decisions based on material everyone is reading. but some people do think like that…..
— razib · Feb 14, 09:03 AM · #
Razib, right — but that’s part of what qualifies info as something someone needs or wants. No one wants it after it’s old!
— Peter Suderman · Feb 14, 09:12 AM · #
“You have to have information no one else has.”
Hell, my site has information no one else wants.
— Steve Sailer · Feb 14, 10:20 AM · #
Thanks for the hat tip!
You have to have information, or coverage, that no one else has. Despite my call for investigative reporting in that post, one of the things that sets apart The Economist is that it never breaks news. Its added value lies in the analysis and commentary of information that everyone else has.
You’re absolutely right that a lot of journalism is, well, useless. I think the 80-20 rule very much applies to print media. This is why, even though I believe in the importance of a vibrant media as much as anyone else, I’m not shedding too much tears over the New York Times. Newspapers profited from basically a monopoly, on classifieds, on certain kinds of advertising, even on a certain kind of commentary. This monopoly made them fat and arrogant, allowed them to extract too much money from captive consumers. That newspapers are no longer in this position is, in my view, a very, very good thing.
And when I see the New York Times blame their losses on the web even though I read a good story by them once in a blue moon, meanwhile almost every single story in The Economist on any given week is great, meanwhile they have these huge, impossibly overweening headquarters that cost a fortune, meanwhile they own a friggin’ baseball team, and have union printers who refuse to take a haircut, well, forgive me for shedding few tears. It’s amazing how similar the Times people and the Big Three people are in believing that their business is absolutely essential to some Great Eternal American Way of Life when, really, it’s not. The valuable people at the Times will always find one way or another to produce great news and great commentary and extract value for that. For the others, well, Schumpeter’s coming, and he’s looking pissed off.
Of course this good thing as a devastating side effect, that it threatens to kill reporting and a kind of press coverage. I think this fear is overblown but not illegitimate. I think that contrary to what newspapermen say, people like Michael Yon show that you can do valuable, on-the-ground reporting as a blogger and make a living from it. I think that nonprofits will step in to fund opinion and investigative journalism. I think that business models for online journalism are coming. I think that paper newspapers can be profitable, but they will have to work a lot harder for it, because the world is changing (although I would love to see the Times basically give up the print version as Marc Andreessen has suggested, I think that’s the only way they would make the painful changes that need to be made).
In other words, I’m optimistic, and think that the great media shift is a basically good thing. But I guess that’s not surprising.
— PEG · Feb 14, 10:35 AM · #
razib: the main reason why the WSJ can afford to have a subscription fee is that it’s a business neswpaper and most readers get their companies to pay for it.
— PEG · Feb 14, 11:02 AM · #
Etiquette question: is it still a “hat tip” if both writers are on the same blog? I feel like the gaucheness of wearing one’s hat at home(page) overwhelms the courtesy. Maybe we’re in close enough proximity that we can “fist jab” or something.
— Dara Lind · Feb 14, 11:24 AM · #
Fist jab? I’m no terrorist!
How about: “I am grateful for your eminent consideration”?
— PEG · Feb 14, 11:30 AM · #
I assumed the use of the modifier in “terrorist fist jab” implied there were other kinds of fist jab as well. We shouldn’t engage in guilt by association.
— Dara Lind · Feb 14, 12:27 PM · #
“ I’m not sure, for example, that I’ve ever written for a profitable publication.”
Obviously.
Do you even know how the Economist makes money? Here’s a hint: It ain’t from $120/year subscription price.
Honestly, this is as bad as the shit I used to hear when I hung out with lefty doco types, and I am stunned. No wonder Culture11 folded so fast. If this is the future of conservatism and/or journalism, both are fukt. Thanks for ruining my morning.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 14, 01:06 PM · #
Dara: well, commentators are often guilty of pleonasming (and verbing nouns). Besides, guilt by association is the fun kind!
— PEG · Feb 14, 01:13 PM · #
Pleonasm might be TAS’ patron trope. It’s certainly mine.
— Dara Lind · Feb 14, 01:28 PM · #
The profitability, or lack thereof, of magazines is always a puzzle to me. Readers of The New Republic know that it has never made money because they sometimes joke about it in the pages of the magazine itself. But The New York Review of Books is profitable. Looking at the quality and quantity of ads in the magazine, I can’t see how they would add up to the necessary piles of cash. And that’s not a magazine making it up on volume. What gives? (I ask as an ignoramus, of course.)
And Peter, as for your never having written for a profitable magazine, is there some causal connection? Maybe someday heavily indebted periodicals will be said to experience the Suderman Effect.
— Alan Jacobs · Feb 14, 02:27 PM · #
Couple of things:
I remembered this morning that I once wrote an op-ed for the OC Register, which I believe is profitable (although I wouldn’t be surprised if, like most papers, they’re having some trouble these days). And at least one other publication I’ve written for might be profitable; I just don’t know. So I’m not a total curse.
Also, I’m not sure why we should bemoan the fact that it’s tough to do interesting opinion journalism profitably. National Review, The New Republic, The Weekly Standard, The American Prospect, The Nation — all of these publications manage to produce quality journalism (for their respective ideological niches) without bringing in a profit.
Tony, sorry to, er, ruin your morning, but what’s the alternative here? And why is a non-profit future so bad? I’ve worked at non-profits since I graduated from college (Culture11 was actually the exception, except, of course, we know it wasn’t profitable) — they’re great places to work, and many of DC non-profits are effective, well-regarded, and financially stable, despite not producing a profit. Indeed, I think much of the great cultural research and idea work done in this country is done by folks working at institutions that aren’t profitable in the buy-for-a-dollar-sell-for-two kind of way. Why not push journalism toward that model?
— Peter Suderman · Feb 14, 07:11 PM · #
Peter, I’d like to give you a more thoughtful and by neccesity more verbose answer than I have time for at the present, but given the tenor of this morning’s comment, some sort of reply seems in order.
You’ve asked “why not?” (which is commonly used as short hand for a liberal posture, but never mind that for now.) Having asked the question, I’d invite you to answer your question from a traditional conservative perspective, with special attention to market place distortions and unintended consequences.
Yours sincerely,
— Tony Comstock · Feb 15, 04:37 AM · #
Tony — I suppose I wasn’t aware that certain phrases were liberal or conservative, but I’ll try my best to come up with the case against non-profit journalism. One problem might be that it becomes captured by special interests that fund it. I don’t worry too much about this, because in a flourishing non-profit market, backers will compete to fund the ideas they support (just watch how conservatives use horror-stats about Soros money to push donors to give more). Another problem might be limited reach. But limited reach is better than the reach journalism will have if the entire industry effectively crashes. Additionally, you might see reduced levels of trust in the media, especially if sponsors were known. But is blind trust in the media really a great thing to begin with? Institutions particularly concerned with their reputations will put firewalls in between their backers and their editorial departments — the same as they do now with their advertisers.
Sure, successful for-profit ventures might (and only might) be more ideal in some ways. But how do we get there? If you’ve got a solution, I’m all ears.
So, again, I ask, with no liberal slant intended, why not? Is there something I’m missing?
— Peter Suderman · Feb 15, 05:38 AM · #
Tony, I’m also interested in the reasons behind your skepticism of the potential for non-profit journalism. When you have the time, know that at least two people will be reading keenly. (Not bad for the world of blog comments.)
Also, I’m genuinely stumped on how the Economist makes money. Is it by selling those special reports? Profits from Cafe Press mugs and t-shirts? The arms trade and drug dealing? Seriously, tell me, this is going to drive me slowly crazy.
— Tim Ross · Feb 15, 06:13 AM · #
Let me add one more potential rebuttal to my suggestion: the money for non-profit journalism isn’t there, and the whole thing is a pipe dream. That may be true. I’m not sold on the notion that non-profit journalism is somehow a lock to revitalize the industry. But it does seem like there are real parallels in the ideas-and-advocacy world, and, aside from shrugging my shoulders and agreeing that we just don’t need to employ journalists (which, OK, may be the case), I don’t see a lot of obviously better alternatives right now.
— Peter Suderman · Feb 15, 06:36 AM · #
Peter, Tim
Thanks for your interest. Doing a family weekend in the city and no time for a more complete reply. For now:
1) As far as the effect on the marketplace is concerned, the difference between for-profit corps. and non-profits corps is not whether or not either of them make money. Non-profits often do make money, for-profits often do not. The important difference is the tax treatment of the funds invested/donated; and the tax treatment of revenues generated. This difference makes non-profits fundamentally risk-averse, while giving them an advantage over for-profit endeavors. This difference creates market distortion that tends to make non-profit participation in the market a self-fulfilling prophecy — they drive profit out of markets. I.E. when non-profits move in, they displace dynamic, risk taking, wealth-generating for-profit players. Do you really think this will be good for journalism, especially journalism that is supposed to function as a check on government power?
For further reading, check up on either arts funding in America and/or the effect of NGOs on the fostering of civil society in the developing world. Even the lefties are coming around to the idea that commerce is pro-social. Seeing young conservatives (apparently weaned on the non-profit “solution”) so mistrustful and/or unable to think their way through the idea that commerce is the future of journalism is enough to make an old man cry.
I mean come on people, non-profit is for running soup kitchens and needle exchange programs. Not for subsidizing muck raking journalism, or the “idea advocacy industry.” (I personally am pinning the “death of conservatism” flag on that sentence. When “non-profit” and “industry” appear in the same thought from a leading conservative writer and he thinks that’s a good thing, it’s game-over, people.)
2) The Economist, like any other mainstream publication, makes its money by selling its readership to advertisers. Subscription costs often don’t even cover the cost of paper, ink and postage. In the print world, especially the top tier demographic appeal mags, advertisers value “full fare” paying subscribers more highly than discounted or free readers. In the ad sales game, subscription premiums (alarm clocks, tote bags, etc.) actually work at cross-purposes to the work of the ad sales staff. In other words, advertisers think someone who pays full rate for a subscription to “The Economist” is worth paying more money to reach than someone who picked up a subscription through Publisher’s Clearing House. Download or request a copy of The Economist’s media kit. Check out their ad-rate, and do the math.
Apologies for exasperated tone. After 20 years of shouting myself hoarse on this subject in bohemian cafes, it’s more than a little surprising to find myself banging the same gong to “conservatives.” Never mind the future of journalism, I weep for the future of my country.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 15, 02:30 PM · #
Tony,
Having worked at a couple of 501c3/c4s, I’m reasonably aware of the different tax treatments, as well as the way that operations are structured toward the most favorable tax position.
And I’m sympathetic toward your bias toward commerce — really! But if this is such a bad option, my question is, what’s the better plausible alternative? The ship of commercial journalism is in some pretty stormy waters right now; I’m trying, in my own limited way, to figure ways that might lead it to safe harbor.
— Peter Suderman · Feb 15, 08:15 PM · #
Tony, that was a good reply. Thanks for the clarification on the Economist. I guess all those ads for finance programs in Britain and the occasional luxury good would, yeah, add up to a tidy sum. Silly of me to overlook that, but it’s been a couple months since I picked an issue up.
Not sure if I buy your argument though. Actually, scratch that, I think you’re completely wrong. But I doubt know if I have the chops to lay out a strong case – I just have a strong hunch.
Also, this –
“Non-profit is for running soup kitchens and needle exchange programs”
- strikes me as leaving out a whole damn lot. Seriously, dude. I work in the non-profit sector, and neither ladle soup nor swap syringes to pay the bills. So that’s a weakness in your argument: you don’t sound like you think non-profit can do all that much. But out in the real world, non-profit as a sector delivers a huge amount of services and employs a lot of great people. Just to dismiss it as only useful for delivering services to the indigent and the chemically troubled – that’s not the whole story.
— Tim Ross · Feb 16, 05:43 AM · #
Well this is just great.
Peter wants to class journalism in the same catagory of endevour as ballet; a lovely but archaic art form that must be preserved in spite of the fact that no one actually want to pay for it.
And Tim, who works in the non-profit sector doesn’t believe that ad pay for The Economist, but doesn’t have the “chops” to lay out an argument. Do you think that might be because you work in the non-profit sector, Tim? Not the best place for gaining an understanding of how companies make a profit, y’know? Trust me pal, it’s the ads. Like I said, download the media kit and do the math.
Neither of you have even attempted to address the corrosive effect of non-profit actors on the commercial sector. If anything, Tim seems to think it’s wonderful (“out in the real world, non-profit as a sector delivers a huge amount of services and employs a lot of great people”)
It’s almost too perfect.
Let’s have a non-profit auto industry (well on our way,) and a non-profit banking industry (well on our way there too.) What other sector of the economy do you want to rid of innovation and risk-taking? How about tech. I got murdered on Lucent stock. Maybe they should have gone non-profit, and where’s my goddamn bail out?
What kind of Alice in freaking Wonderland world have I woken up to. I really thought I was done giving this lecture when I stopped hanging out with liberals…
There’s a great and lucid body of work on how NGOs are killing subsaharan Africa. If you seriously think non-profit is the way forward for journalism than you should read up. You’ve got Google and you’ve got your journalism degree and you’ve got time on your hands. Time for a little freelance investigation. You can thank me later.
Oh, and btw, I’ve worked in business magazine publishing and the non-profit world (including soup kitchens and needle exchanges)and a few other things, including starting and running successful businesses. I’ve got more than a little experience in “the real world.” (I don’t know how to tell you this, and I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but people in the “real world” dont’ really consider working at non-profits “the real world.”)
Again, apologies for tone, but you’ve really got me spun around on this. I’m accustomed to the whole “my best interest are the best interest of the state” thing from hippies. I’m all off balance hearing from the buzz cut crowd.
— Tony Comstock · Feb 16, 02:06 PM · #
“And this is why I believe that the future of journalism looks a lot like the world of non-profit politics: a mix of corporate sponsorship, wealthy backers, and small individual donors supporting missions they believe necessary, or just interesting”
I hope you all don’t mind if a lurker intrudes for a moment.
I share Peter Suderman’s distress about the future of journalism, and I also share Tony Comstock’s frustration that the “solution” on offer is non-profit journalism.
Here are a couple of questions to contemplate:
Given the state of our economy—and specifically given the fear and panic in the business community, and among wealthy donors and investors—exactly how long do you think the non-profit sector will continue to exist?
As wealthy donors and supporters of non-profits begin to feel the pinch of steeply falling profits in their own sources of income (their profit is the extra money left over after they’ve paid their overhead—their vendors and suppliers, their employees, their state and local governments, their share of their employees’ entitlements, etc.—and their expenses—namely, all the cool stuff and vacations and restaurant meals and jets and boats and jewelry that they want, plus their alimony and their child support and their kids’ tuition and clothing and entertainment allowances, etc.), do you think they will continue to pour money into their pet non-profit projects? Or will they rather make sure that their own needs are taken care of first (and screw their pet projects)?
While you contemplate, I’ll tell you what I think: Philanthropy is not a given. Non-profits depend on the largess of people who think they can afford to give money away, and damn the consequences.
We are no longer living in that world. The non-profit sector is a lagging indicator of a rapidly descending world economy.
I’d suggest that people who are now working in the non-profit sector prepare for a world of hurt, and that they sharpen their skills, because soon enough they will find themselves competing for jobs in the profit sector, such as it is. And it ain’t much.
— hepzeeba · Feb 16, 03:52 PM · #
Tony, I can see you feel pretty strongly about this. You’ve laid out a passionately argued case.
While doing that, you insulted me in another thread, and dismissed me in this one, and I didn’t really enjoy either. You ought to consider more carefully what you say in the future.
I’m ticked off, because I came in here looking for an argument, and got hit with some juvenile ad hominem. (“Parent’s basement in 2018?” WTF? Making big inferential leaps about what I don’t know about business operations based on one fragment of my work history? Give me a break.)
I think we can do a hell of a lot better at this site. This isn’t the Usenet.Anyways, it sounds like you’ve got a pretty strong opinion on what the non-profit sector can and can’t do. Doesn’t look like I stand a good chance of convincing you otherwise.
— Tim Ross · Feb 16, 08:14 PM · #
Oh crap. [Sound of forehead slapping]
I think I made a serious misreading of your comment, Tony, in Pascal’s
Status thread. You referred to Harvard, a hypothetical book to be written in 2018, and “Ross”, and I interpreted it as snark directed at me. Then I went into high dudgeon mode. I’m almost morally certain now that you were making a jokey reference to Ross Douthat, not to my last name.
I’m sorry, Tony, and apologies to the rest of the blog community. I will read more carefully in the future, and won’t make assumptions so quickly.
Anyways, Tony, in the hopes that we can continue this friendly argument, I’m going to put more of my cards on the table, the specific non-profit field that I work in is education. (Some would call it non-traditonal education, and it is in that Horace Mann wouldn’t like it, but in many other ways it is in fact radically traditional education. Like “Great Tradition” radical. Ironically, a lot of my peers are far out lefties and greenies and what not, but we’re engaged in a pretty conservative project.)
Anyways, you & I started to talk past one another on the general utility of non-profits. I got ticked off because what I heard from you is that, because of my work, I couldn’t know anything about how profits get made. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but it’s what I heard, and I’ll tell you a bit about why it stuck in my craw. Look, I’m not going to hold myself out as any kind of business expert, but I’m going to push back against being dismissed from the serious people’s table.
First, it’s not as if I’ve only ever worked for nonprofits (or as if I don’t bother to pay attention to the rest of the economy). Second, lots of folks in nonprofits may not need to make a profit but they sure do need to meet a budget. If you’re passionately devoted to fulfilling a mission and providing a needed service, then if you are at all prudent then, by gum you are going to understand your balance sheet and keep it in the black. Finally, I don’t like being kicked out of the club of ‘people with worthwhile opinions’ because, well, look around, Tony: how many writers at The Scene draw a fair chunk of their income from the non-profit sector? Alan Jacobs is in higher ed. I think, but don’t know, that Suderman does a lot of work for opinion journals that don’t make money. Do they too lack the requisite understanding of how the world works to discuss this stuff? Or is it just me?
— Tim Ross · Feb 16, 08:51 PM · #
Enough personal stuff, back to the issue:
I’m genuinely baffled by the concern that a shift to a non-profit model is, by what appears to me some kind of a priori reasoning, going to predictably lead to a decline in the quality of the product. It seems a bit unempirical – a sort of von Misean way of looking at things – and I just don’t see how we can possibly make such a confident pronouncement of pessimism about the journalism’s future health & vigour.
To me, there are so many other variables in play. So, other than hepzeeba’s caveat that the money may just dry up (which Peter Suderman acknowledged as a pretty big caveat at that, and I do as well) I’m having trouble following the chain of causality leading from a shift in the economic model (from ad-subsidized to, well, big donor subdizided) to inevitable dilution of product quality. Which is how I’m reading your argument.
Also, while “journalism” and “Africa” are both two complicated, fascinating, troubled categories, they have enough just enough differences that I doubt that, just because NGOs may have dropped the ball in one (which is debatable!! not a given, my friend!) they will inevitably screw up the other.
Finally, I fear that hepzeeba is right, and the wheels are gonna come off the non-profit sector. Which could just finish off journalism. But if it gets that bad, ALL of us will have a heck of a lot more to worry about than hanging out on blogs talking about “whither journalism?”. Fortunately, I’ve spent a lot of time living in tents, so, uh, at least I’ve got that going for me.
— Tim Ross · Feb 16, 09:11 PM · #
Tony — I think you misunderstand me, and I think you’re confusing the non-profit advocacy sector with government-grant sponsored NGOs. None of the non-profits I’ve worked for have taken government money; indeed, all of them existed entirely to agitate for a smaller state. Are groups like Heritage, or Cato, or National Review, or any of the other right of center organizations that are successful but don’t make money “corrosive” to the business sector? I’m genuinely curious. It’s their model — not the invasive third-world NGO model, which deserves lots of criticism — that I’m thinking of.
— Peter Suderman · Feb 17, 05:49 AM · #
“Are groups like Heritage, or Cato, or National Review, or any of the other right of center organizations that are successful but don’t make money “corrosive” to the business sector?”
The hour is late, but in a word, yes. Of course I also happen to hold the “radical” view that a tax code that treats capital gains differently from wages creates (pro-social) distortions in the market. But as each year goes by I find I have fewer and fewer allies…
Tim, apologies for the name confusing. Indeed, I was making a joke Mr. Dochat’s expense.
No apologies for telling you you sound like you don’t know thing one about business when you respond to a lucid and accurate description of the magazine business with “I think you’re completely wrong. But I doubt know if I have the chops to lay out a strong case – I just have a strong hunch.”
Also on the whole “ passionately devoted to fulfilling a mission and providing a needed service” thing. Surely you must be familiar with this C.S. Lewis quote. It’s one of my favorites:
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”— Tony Comstock · Feb 17, 07:14 AM · #
Tony – I wasn’t familiar with that CS Lewis quote, but it’s a good one. I’ve seen that mindset before (up close, a few times) – and of course seen it in the pages of history – and it can be dangerous. Thanks, and thanks for the debate.
Just as a point of clarification – it looks like I may have suggested like I rejected your portrayal of the Economist’s business model (ad-rate driven revenue stream.) My phrasing wasn’t very clear. But what I was (very poorly) disagreeing with wasn’t with your description of the current business model of that magazine, which I fully accept. I was (lazily) pointing out that it still did not logically follow (for me) that a for-profit model was the only way to have healthy journalism. (That was the “hunch” that I didn’t have the “chops” – or the energy – to expand into a convincing argument.)
In conclusion, I probably should just start my own blog.
— Tim Ross · Feb 17, 04:51 PM · #
“Just as a point of clarification – it looks like I may have suggested like I rejected your portrayal of the Economist’s business model (ad-rate driven revenue stream.) My phrasing wasn’t very clear.”
Count me as relieved to hear this! Never mind my own distress, this had my NPR, NRDC, Heifer International donating wife in a lather as well. Please do try to express yourself more clearly in the future. The political ecology in Casa Comstock exists in a delicate balance; and the introduction of the suspicion of profit motive as a “conservative” stance could easily wipe out all indigenous flora and fauna!
Now if we can (gently) help Peter to see that the Cato Institute et all do take tax payer money, we can declare this thread a success! ;-)
— Tony Comstock · Feb 17, 05:21 PM · #
Tony: I am chastened. I do not want to be responsible for the micro-political equivalent of introducing rabbits to Australia!
I resolve to write with more precision and care in the future – if not for me, then for others. Let no one say I do not care about the domestic tranquility of innocent, politically-diverse couples. With great connectivity, I have learned, comes great responsibility.
Now in re: Cato’s funding, I plead invincible ignorance: that’s above my pay grade. I won’t touch that subject with a ten-foot pole. But I wish you good luck in any debate with Peter, and I’ll probably pull up a chair, get some popcorn, and watch.
Be well, Tony, and I hope your local political ecosystem returns to its normal equilibrium soon.
— Tim Ross · Feb 17, 06:41 PM · #
Interesting bit of gossip about Craig’s list and non-profit status came over our transom. Given the revenue that classifieds used to earn for newspapers, it seems worthwhile to post the link here, even if I can’t vouch for the veracity. Maybe one of you out of work journalists want to dig a little deeper:
http://craigslistcriticism.blogspot.com/2009/02/articles-are-still-disappointing-but.html
— Tony Comstock · Feb 18, 01:34 AM · #