Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Future of News Is Nonprofit

Posted by Chris Bowers, Open Left at 3:24 PM on June 4, 2009.


There is no future for profit-maximizing news outlets. None.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Chris Bowers in your
mailbox!

 

All of the discussions about the future of newspapers and journalism are never going to get anywhere until more people come to the realization that there is no future for profit-maximizing news outlets. There are simply too many media outlets, especially online, that are willing to produce and distribute quality news information either for free, or for prices and that will never lead to profitability, for profit-maximizing organizations to successful, and sustainably, compete with them. As time goes on, these media outlets will only continue to expand in number and audience, undercutting for-profit news outlets all the way.

The lack of a viable, profit-maximizing model for news outlets is probably obvious to most proprietors of media outlets. In the online world, for example, most full-time bloggers know they must rely on free content produced by readers (virtually every large blog already does this), procure alternative sources of income, and work ridiculously long hours (not to mention wonderful donations by readers!), just to scratch by.  As Yglesias writes, it is hard to compete with free:

The startup costs of a decent website are pretty small in the scheme of things. And there are lots of people and institutions-academics looking to bring their research to a wider public, think tanks and advocacy organizations looking to influence the public debate, corporations like Google looking to express their views on policy debates, students trying to get an edge in the job market, authors hoping to promote a book-with perfectly good incentives to run websites that don't aspire to maximize profits.(...)

[L]ots of people want to write about political issues for reasons that have nothing to do with profit-maximization. And my sense is that organizations are increasingly doing this. CAP/AF was a think tank early adopter in terms of building robust in-house new media capacity, but to the best of my knowledge just about every think tank and advocacy shop in town would like to get in on the action. And ultimately, a proliferation of content that's not supposed to make money is going to make it even harder than it already is for those trying to make profits to do so.

It isn't just that people are willing to produce quality content either for free or for prices that don't approach profitability. It is also that the Internet has led to a growing perception that just about all information should be free. Consumers are demanding free information, and lots of people are willing to give it to them.

Good luck finding a for-profit business model to compete against that. Eventually, if you want to make a living producing news, you will have to do it with an organization that is not interested in, and does not rely upon, making a profit. The future of journalism is a non-profit one, even as Internet advertising increases (or was increasing, before the economic meltdown). This could actually prove to be a big positive, since it means that reader donations, rather than advertising, will be the driving source of income for news organizations.

Digg!

Chris Bowers was a full-time editor at MyDD from May 2004 until June 2007. Some of his projects have included the creation of the Liberal Blog Advertising Network, the first scientifically random poll of progressive netroots activists, the Use It Or Lose It campaign, the nation's most accurate forecast of Democratic house pickups in 2006, and the 2006 Googlebomb the Elections campaign.


Ned Lamont to Run for Governor of Connecticut
There are not many progressive Democratic Governors. Lamont's entry into this campaign could change that.
November 4, 2009.
No More Excuses: John Tester Brings 51st Senate Vote for Public Option
The count's there if they get an up-or-down vote.
October 10, 2009.
Are There Enough Votes For a Public Option? Here's the Math
There are at least 188 votes for the public option, only 29 away from passage.
October 8, 2009.
3 Important Lessons Dems Should Learn From Grayson
Even as Grayson intensified his rhetoric, Republicans withdrew their resolution to condemn him on the House floor.
October 1, 2009.
Public Option Update: 51 Votes Secured on the Floor
There's a chance legislation containing a public option could still pass.
September 29, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Content" is not the same as news
Posted by: weGotCactus on Jun 4, 2009 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of the blog-world content consists of opinions about news that was gathered by a paid reporter working for a for-profit corporation.

"[L]ots of people want to write about political issues... ". Great. Let them. But if the NY Times, the wire services, etc. go down, where do those people get the raw material? Maybe we have enough passionate, objective, self-funded volunteers to cover the newsworthy events, but I think coverage of the less sexy stuff could become thin and amateurish. I don't have an answer but I don't think it's quite so pat - I expect most new media will at least end up subscribing to a couple of for-profit wire services just to make sure the citizen reporting is aligned with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe
Posted by: maryyooch on Jun 5, 2009 4:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe this will be the best thing that could of happened. This way, they won't have to bow down to their corporate masters anymore. Maybe, we'll get real reporting with real journalists like it was 40-50 years ago. No more right-wing bias!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No More Credibility
Posted by: terradea42 on Jun 5, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you report what your master wants you to report, you lose credibility. That's what happened to for-profit media. Reporting from the biased perspective of whomever pays you is not news, it's propaganda, and it is why the journalists of yesterday became the whores of today (Fox, anyone?). Who wants to pay to hear someone spew BS when they can read the intelligent, fact-based writing or hear the well thought out commentary of those who work for the mere sake of informing the pubic? Bye bye Murdoch, hello democracy ... where have you been?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Consumers are demanding free information, and lots of people are willing to give it to them."
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Jun 5, 2009 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's why neocons want to privatize the internet, and I dare say, they will get their way. I'm pretty sure it's the big O himself who will hand the internet to the telcos on a silver platter, using some vaguely bleeding heart shill language about getting the internet into the homes of underprivileged children, or some such nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jun 5, 2009 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers are necessary to a democracy. We can hate Murdoch, the Wall St. Journal, The NY Times, etc. But the public has to be infomed and it can't be a free for all. The financial markets were de-regulated and we're paying a high price. We can't do the same thing with news. No matter what any paper reports, we have a right to question it. The blogs are very much of part of the news. But they can never be "the source". It would make sense to merge newspapers and make it possible for them to survive. Small local papers and family owned papers should be left alone. Free is not all it's cracked up to be. You get what you pay for. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR Posted by: Bliss Doubt
"Consumers are demanding free information, and lots of people are willing to give it to them"
Posted by: clresu on Jun 5, 2009 8:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a confusion over who the consumer is and what the product is when it comes to news. The consumer is not the one who takes in the news, and the product is not the news. The consumers are the corporate advertisers and the product that they consume are the people who take in the media.

This is why corporate media serve the interests of the corporations rather than the readers of the news . . . if their money was coming from the readers of the news, then we'd expect better and more honest - that is to say, "real" - coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No news is good news these days.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 5, 2009 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only news I'd really like to hear are that the Bush/Obama perpetual war on tara is over, that banks, borrowers, and investors have to deal with their choices, and that we have inserted a bit of equal treatment under the law back into the way we run our government...a government that should be as far out of our daily lives as possible.

You can't pay for that kind of news, and it sure won't be coming from a bought-and-paid-for series of presidential administrations and on-the-take Congresscritters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A worthwhile hope
Posted by: Pop on Jun 5, 2009 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
News, Medical Care and Government can be kept honest only through keeping out the profit takers. All of our wars, at least since WWII were all wars for the shady profit takings of Corporate wealth and government power. Both MSM and medicine are now run by corporate greed as well, and they ride roughshod over the needs and rights of the people. Corporate dominance can only be taken out by removing the "personhood" from Corporations where only voting individual people have a say in all government, legislation. including a law that makes it a crime for any corporation to make contributions toward any election or a voice in any election campaign that belongs to the People.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]