The Non-Profit Model - Can It Save Journalism?

This article caught my attention because it was different than most I have recently read. Yes, we all know that newspapers are dying and that they are having a hard time coming up with enough cash. But how often do we hear of people trying out solutions?



Crosscut.com, an online publication started in Seattle that describes itself as "non-partisan" and "in the public interest," has decided to go non-profit.


Battling the difficult economy, the dropping ad prices, and the high start-up costs was tough for Crosscut.


When advertising sales weren't making ends meet, David Brewster, one of the publishers, said he was running out of both money and patience. So, he turned to a solution that has the potential to save Crosscut.


According to the article, Crosscut will now go from a profit-based business to a non-profit organization:


"As a nonprofit, Crosscut would continue to accept advertising but also would solicit tax-deductible donations from individuals and grants from organizations to help finance its journalism."


One of the most prominent examples of a non-profit news organization is National Public Radio.


So now comes the question - will the public support journalism?


I think that comes down to the press-citizen relationship. People need to think of the press as an asset - something highly valuable that is of immense public service. If they take the press for granted, or if they blame it for current problems, then that relationship will be destroyed.


I think that a non-profit model could possibly work - but I highly doubt that most news organizations are in the right position with their readers right now. If they take steps toward showing themselves as reliable, un-biased, quality journalists, then maybe this non-profit thing could save the press after all.


What do you all think? Will it work? Will people donate to their journalism organizations, or do news professionals need to win their trust first?

Newsroom diversity

I ran across this interesting article from the AP regarding religious diversity among publications.

The article talks about evangelical Christians and how they are historically under-represented in the media. You hear lots of exagerated talk about the "big, bad liberal media" among a lot of conservatives, and they often point to the lack of religious diversity in the newsroom as the reason.

The article told of Christian journalists leaving the field to work for religious publications instead. "While there's been heavy gender and racial diversity ... there's a lack of cultural diversity in journalism," said Terry Mattingly, director of the Washington Journalism Center.

Religion is in the definite minority in the newsroom. The Pew Research Center for the People and Press conducted an interesting survey. Only 8% of journalists attended regular religious services. 68% of journalists either never attended religious services or only attended a few times a year.

This is in stark contrast to the general public. 39% of people attend religious services on a weekly basis.

Robert Case, of the World Journalism Institute, made it clear that evangelicals are often grouped into a "sterotype." However, they "are diverse politically, intellectually and theologically," even though this diversity among Christians is often overshadowed.

"It bothers me that when mainstream outlets want an evangelical voice, they've turned to Jerry Falwell or James Dobson or Pat Robertson," Case said. "They are men of high regard and standing, but there are others who have a different take on things."

This article was particularly of interest to me, because I am of the evangelical faith. I do think that journalism is and should always remain open and un-biased. However, I think diversity in the newsroom should at least equal diversity in society. And I don't just mean Christians. I mean other people of faith as well.

I think there are definite places for religious slant in writing, such as in faith-based publications. But obviously, I do not support more Christians in the mainstream newsroom just to "take it over" and impose their agenda. We want as little bias as possible, and that definitely includes religious biases.

I do think, however, that Christians shouldn't be so afraid or resentful of the media, and I believe they should go out there and work in the mainstream media. Hopefully, these journalists will realize the great asset they have - the ability to write about and cover religion with in-depth understanding and first-hand knowledge of faith-based communities and how they operate.

The article summed up the goal of evangelicals in journalism:

In seeking a greater voice in the media, most evangelical leaders say their goal isn't to evangelize inside newsrooms, which demand that journalists set aside their beliefs for the sake of objectivity.

"They have to be journalists first," Mattingly said. "You don't need more Christian journalists. You need more journalists who happen to be Christians if they're going to contribute to any real diversity in newsrooms."

So what do you all think? Does the media seem inclusive and diverse? Or should more faiths be represented in the newsroom?