Comments on: The News Frontier: Innovation in Journalism Is Hard but Necessary

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:43:56 +0000

What the hell are you talking about? Wrong about what? Non-profits being able to be a part of the new media landscape? Did I say that somewhere? If so, cite it. Don't just make it up like you do all your other "facts."

Non-profits absolutely have a roll to play in the media marketplace. They always have. They only point I have made about non-profits and journalism is that we should not expect them to be the ONLY business method or model for journalism going forward.

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:33:32 +0000

Woah, EF. I'm not sure what Adam said to you, but I for one don't have a problem with the idea that non-profits will play a larger role in journalism in the future. In fact, that's part of the kind of innovation I think will be necessary—not just in technologies but in business models as well. I happen to be a fan of the non-profit, since I work for one (PFF) and am on the Board of another (The Space Frontier Foundation, which I recently chaired).

So whatever Adam might or might have said to you, we're no monolith. In any event, "free market economics" isn't just about maximizing financial gain. Freedom is about allowing many different actors to pursue different values, which often means something very different from simple economic profit.

But let's be clear about one thing: the restraints imposed on non-profit corporations will pose a significant challenge to the journalistic independence of the media. I don't just mean the obvious fact that 501(c)(3)s are barred from endorsing candidates and strictly limited in their ability to "lobby" (i.e., endorse legislation) to under 20% of their budget (to simplify matters). The bigger concern is that non-profit organizations are essentially licensed by the State. If they lose their license (their tax-exempt status), they may simply go out of business. This gives the government enormous power over non-profits. The current system has worked tolerably well, with sufficiently clear guidelines that it's difficult for an administration to use the IRS to bully non-profits, but the Clinton Administration sure tried and I'm sure other administrations of both parties have, too, and will do so again in the future.

But I worry that attempts to shoe-horn the unique newsgathering and editorial role of newspapers into the non-profit status will ultimately end up only giving the government more leverage. Organizations that fear losing their license will shy away from criticizing incumbents and the government in general. Just look at Broadcast, especially under the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Perversely, we could see the new media that rise out of the ashes of newspapers being treated a lot more like broadcasters and a lot less like newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That would mean a great reduction in freedom of speech.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:41:22 +0000

St. Louis isn't a no-newspaper town-yet. But it may soon be. Before that happens, though Emily Pulitzer--who knows just a little bit about newspapers--founded a not-for-profit:

http://www.stlbeacon.org/

This is, as readers of TLF should know, a development that I had predicted in comments to several posts by Adam T. Adam reply with invective and name calling. Time for Adam to admit he was wrong.

But, aside from noting that the TLFers are mentally incapable of perceiving any new trend that is not centered around their very limited understanding of free market economics, the development and continued extension of the not-for-profit sector into areas that they historically hadn't been part of seems interesting, and I am wondering why libertarians dislike it so.

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:43:56 +0000

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 02:33:32 +0000

By: Adam Thierer

Adam Thierer — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:43:56 +0000

By: Berin Szoka

Berin Szoka — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 01:33:32 +0000

Woah, EF. I'm not sure what Adam said to you, but I for one don't have a problem with the idea that non-profits will play a larger role in journalism in the future. In fact, that's part of the kind of innovation I think will be necessary—not just in technologies but in business models as well. I happen to be a fan of the non-profit, since I work for one (PFF) and am on the Board of another (The Space Frontier Foundation, which I recently chaired).

So whatever Adam might or might have said to you, we're no monolith. In any event, "free market economics" isn't just about maximizing financial gain. Freedom is about allowing many different actors to pursue different values, which often means something very different from simple economic profit.

But let's be clear about one thing: the restraints imposed on non-profit corporations will pose a significant challenge to the journalistic independence of the media. I don't just mean the obvious fact that 501(c)(3)s are barred from endorsing candidates and strictly limited in their ability to "lobby" (i.e., endorse legislation) to under 20% of their budget (to simplify matters). The bigger concern is that non-profit organizations are essentially licensed by the State. If they lose their license (their tax-exempt status), they may simply go out of business. This gives the government enormous power over non-profits. The current system has worked tolerably well, with sufficiently clear guidelines that it's difficult for an administration to use the IRS to bully non-profits, but the Clinton Administration sure tried and I'm sure other administrations of both parties have and will do so.

But I worry that attempts to shoe-horn the unique newsgathering and editorial role of newspapers into the non-profit status will ultimately end up only giving the government more leverage. Organizations that fear losing their license will shy away from criticizing incumbents and the government in general. Just look at Broadcast, especially under the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Perversely, we could see the new media that rise out of the ashes of newspapers being treated a lot more like broadcasters and a lot less like newspapers for First Amendment purposes. That would mean a great reduction in freedom of speech.

By: eee_eff

eee_eff — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:41:22 +0000