How to Get People to Pay for the News

Image: Ian Kennedy via Flickr

Nowhere is the need for strong local journalism more evident than New Jersey. Severe cutbacks at newspapers over the past several years and the elimination of funding for public media have exacerbated the gaps in local coverage for a state that has lived for too long in the shadows of New York City and Philadelphia news.

Six years ago, the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation launched Informed Communities, a new program area focused on creating a more sustainable, connected and collaborative news ecosystem in New Jersey. The goal of this work is not to “save” journalism. We want to improve people’s lives, foster healthy communities, and strengthen our democracy. High quality local news and information helps people make informed decisions about issues that impact their lives, encourages them to be civically engaged, and creates deeper understanding and empathy among residents in communities.

As the Program Director for Informed Communities and participant in many town hall forums and community events, I believe more strongly than ever that:

  1. People will pay for local news and information they fully trust and value, just like they would for any product they find indispensable, and
  2. People will fully trust and value local news when — and only when — newsrooms make a genuine commitment to listening to their communities, responding to the issues people say matter most to them, and inviting them to collaborate and have a voice.

In his recent essay “Seven Things You Need to Know About Non-Profit Journalism,” David Sassoon of InsideClimate News tries to tackle the field’s uncertain financial future, and he offers non-profit journalism as the antidote to the problems that broader journalism field is facing. But the real issue at hand is how the institution of journalism, regardless of business models or tax status, can better serve the public — and by extension, democracy — with news and information that is relevant to people’s lives, engages them in issues that they say matter most to them, holds powerful institutions accountable, and gives people from all backgrounds an opportunity to have their stories told.

To be sure, business models look different depending on the kind of media as well as the size and reach of the organization — the mix of revenue streams that might work for a small community news sites is not going to be the same for broadcast television news or a metro daily newspaper. But so long as news organizations rely on real people to pay for the news, the long term health of journalism writ large depends on building trust with the public, and being genuinely responsive to people’s news and information needs.

This is true for both non-profit and for-profit news organizations.

What is not true, however, is that for-profit news is inherently less trustworthy and lower quality, or that non-profit news is inherently more trustworthy and high quality, despite many obvious examples that make both of these ideas feel true to us.

For me, the problem with Sassoon’s essay is that he uses “for-profit” as a proxy for “mass / corporate media” and for everything he sees as wrong with journalism: prioritizing clicks over quality, seeking and maintaining access to authorities rather than speaking truth to power, the corrupting influence of money on editorial integrity. Those are problems of the field as a whole — problems that both for-profit and non-profit news organizations are susceptible to and guilty of — which needs to be but is not acknowledged.

Allow me to delve a little deeper.

Sassoon argues that non-profit journalism “works” because:

“Serving the public interest is [non-profit journalism’s] sole function.”
Even if this is true for non-profits (which I think is debatable), being a for-profit news organization does not preclude it from being mission-driven too. New Jersey’s news landscape is dominated by hyperlocal digital sites in towns all across the state, all of which are for-profit. These sites are community anchors — vital to the information needs of residents throughout New Jersey — and are not “in it for the money” either.

“Non-profits use resources efficiently.”
Sure, some do. Some don’t. I can tell you that the for-profit sites that we’ve been working with over the past two years are as or more resourceful and creative with small experimental dollars than many of the Dodge Foundation’s other non-profit grantees. For these mom-and-pop hyperlocals, a $5,000 grant is a windfall to them — like winning the lottery — and it’s been amazing to see how far they can stretch those dollars to build new revenue streams.

“Non-profit journalism is immune to external pressures that can compromise editorial independence.”
Perhaps you remember this story about WNET / New York Public Television and the Koch brothers? This is the most naive assertion in Sassoon’s essay. There is absolutely nothing about non-profit journalism that makes it immune to external pressures that might compromise editorial independence.

“Non-profit outlets are needed to fill gaps in coverage…to do the work that the media industry can no longer do on its own.”
Why specifically non-profits? Aren’t there just big gaps that need filling, period?

“It’s harder to fool a non-profit media outlet, especially one that has subject matter expertise.”
Sassoon notes that journalism’s failures to properly and comprehensively cover subjects like mass incarceration, climate change and the run-up to the Iraq war make the case for independent, non-profit journalism — particularly for those with specialized knowledge. Again, there is nothing to suggest that non-profit journalism is uniquely qualified to cover these topics better. You may believe that for-profit news organizations aren’t covering these topics well (or even at all), but that doesn’t mean they’re incapable of doing so.

Surprisingly, he also argues that “non-profits need an angel of their own” citing Jeff Bezos’ ownership and “transformation” of the Washington Post. How does Sassoon reconcile his point that “non-profit journalism is immune to external pressures that can compromise editorial independence” with “non-profits need an angel of their own”? Who among us believes that an angel funder would have zero influence?

I do sympathize with and share his frustrations about journalism, though, and the choices that many news organizations make to put money and access to power and vanity ahead of making people’s lives better.

Fortunately, there are those in the journalism field who put people first, and that number seems to keep growing: leaders like Jenn Brandel who founded Hearken, which fundamentally turns the journalism process on its head, and Andrew Haeg, whose Groundsource software powers public dialogue on important community issues via text messaging. Richland Source offers meaningful and constructive stories to their community, much like the Solutions Journalism Network seeks to help people understand and give them concrete ways to get involved in issues they care about. Appalshop radio continues to uphold its decades long commitment to being of and for their Appalachian community. The Center for Investigative Reporting is integrating wildly creative community engagement ideas into its reporting, and ProPublica routinely invites people to help them investigate stories.

This is only a small handful of examples, but collectively they represent a vision for the future of journalism that is inclusive, constructive, creative and fundamentally in service to the public.

Let us not get distracted from pursuing that vision by arguing the merits of non-profit vs. for-profit journalism. We should be fighting for journalism that improves all of our lives and all of our communities — the kind of news and information we would enthusiastically pay for, regardless of a newsroom’s business model.

President, Independence Public Media Foundation

President, Independence Public Media Foundation