Senator Proposes Bill to Enable Newspapers to Be Run as ‘Not-For Profits’
An intriguing proposal from U. S. Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland. This would not in any way help the giant media conglomorates, but it appears that this might help local newspapers survive and, maybe eventually, thrive.
Cardin introduced a bill that would allow newspapers to choose tax-exempt status. They would no longer be able to make political endorsements, but could report on all issues including political campaigns.
Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax-exempt, and contributions to support coverage could be tax deductible.
Cardin said in a statement that the bill is aimed at preserving local newspapers, not large newspaper conglomerates.
“We are losing our newspaper industry,” said Cardin. “The economy has caused an immediate problem, but the business model for newspapers, based on circulation and advertising revenue, is broken, and that is a real tragedy for communities across the nation and for our democracy.”
On the surface, this appears to make sense to the Beast Who Slumbers. Of course, maybe if Congress had withstood Newt Gingrich’s push to enable newspaper owners to own TV stations and vice versa, which paved the way for Murdoch, among others, this wouldn’t have been necessary.
Fortunately, this blog has some serious students of newspapers who comment here. So, to anon, Geezer, and everybody else, whaddayathink?
And, decoupled from Gannett (if that’s possible), could this be a model that could lead to the renaissance of the News-Journal?
THREAD UPDATE: FROM WDEL’S ALLAN LOUDELL:
“I’ll be interviewing Senator Cardin on-the-air about this tomorrow (Wednesday) at about 12:15 p.m. during the “WDEL Delaware News at Noon”.
Thanks, Allan. ‘Bulo will be listening.
Tags: Media
If this is enacted, DelawareLiberal should incorporate immediately and claim the exemption. Even without significant revenue, you would then be able to deduct all your expenses… which might include things like Internet services, travel expenses, auto mileage, phone service, etc.
It would be way better than getting a mail-order ministry.
Blogs don’t have the ability to do the research and investigation to the degree needed to replace a DE newspaper. I was just thinking that this morning, anyway. I know that I do a minimal but that I mostly act as a hopeful prime agent. Setting up a prompting for more forma action.
Blogs as the shrill voice in the room, have that great leverage in the age of the internet.
The conglomerate blogs like Delly Lib could possibly move into that sphere, while others are already there. Jane and Christy and FDL have created such an entity.
Krugman has his million + nobel money now and doesn’t need a paycheck 🙂 , but could he have ‘risen to that level’ without the NYT?
This is interesting. Especially if it includes on line newspapers too — a couple of the recently closed are trying to revive themselves as online only presences.
Nancy Willing may be right. But at least DL would have a pro ‘rasslin’ column.
How would they structure their advertising rates and subscription policies? At what level above they stated rates would a charitable deduction take place for an advertiser or subscriber?
But we could no longer endorse candidates. I presume that we could no longer say things like “If you vote for Charlie Copeland, you are a dolt.”
I presume that we could no longer say things like “If you vote for Charlie Copeland, you are a dolt.”
Fuck it then.
Also, I hate this idea for regular newspapers. the sham objectvity is what is killing them in the first place. This would make the shame objectvity worse because “he said/she said” would be written into the DNA of the organization.
Granted, we are at about 99% “He said/She said” style reporting now…but still…
Good point… you guys would not be able to restrain yourselves, and jackbooted IRS agents would be kicking down your door by the end of September.
It sounds good to me, but like they say – the devil is in the details. Are they perhaps looking to a NPR model for newspapers? The proposal seems to be going in the opposite direction of what I think will happen, i.e., media outlets will split into partisan outlets and newspapers will go to an online presence instead of a dead tree version.
The Delaware version of this might be called “Celia’s Law.”
NPR is not an especially good model for political reporting. They are right in the on the one hand and on the other hand reporting.
For more local papers, a nonprofit status might give them an opportunity to regroup and spend more time reporting locally and just put up an AP or Reuters feed for the national or international stuff. I think that local papers can get back their audiences if people can get local news not covered in other places. No one covers the Wilmington City Council much unless they are doing some high profile legislation or hearing. And these people could use some additional surveillance.
After a bit of thought… no, no way.
Think about the sources you read every day, right now. The thing you value the most is the independent voice. A government-subsidized newspaper would be seen as Pravda.
Or on the flip side, the subsidy would be resented by conservatives as they currently resent NPR.
anon @ 12,
I’ll grant you that I’ve just skimmed this, but the proposal doesn’t call for government subsidies to newspapers. So get Pravda notions out of your head.
Cardin may just be floating this to get the idea out there, but I see it as just hot air. Nonprofit newspapers are nothing new. The press doesn’t need the government’s permission to form a nonprofit, or a for-profit, for that matter.
The Christian Science Monitor and St. Petersburg Times are among the most prominent examples of nonprofit newspapers.
See http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0212/p03s01-usgn.html for an overview and some inspiring anecdotes from a nonprofit Web news site in California.
And as for the question about TNJ… it’d take a decoupling from the Gannett superstructure, which would only be done by a new management team, which could only be put in place by new majority shareholders.
I’ll be interviewing Senator Cardin on-the-air about this tomorrow (Wednesday) at about 12:15 p.m. during the “WDEL Delaware News at Noon”.
Allan Loudell
WDEL Radio
The proposal is rather frightening to me because it would, in fact, allow governemnt to limit the editorial voice of the publications that go non-profit — especially the limit on the ability of papers to endorse candidates. We would have then gone 180 degrees from what newspapers were at the founding of the republic — from explicitly partisan voices to politically neutered entities.
anon told the truth:
Anon used a very liberally biased site as his example, one which makes no bones about it. So, newspapers couldn’t actually endorse anyone, kind of like CBS doesn’t endorse anyone, but the liberal bias would still be apparent.
RWR,
What other limits would there be besides on editorial opinions in certain cases (endorsing candidates, endorsing ballot initiatives)?
You either don’t understand the issue or don’t want to understand the issue. The government can’t “control” a nonprofit media outlet any more than it can “control” a nonprofit social service organization or a church. Those entities simply have to follow the rules for tax-exempt organizations, which aren’t too onerous, or they lose their tax-exempt status. It’s very simple.
I’m sorry, but I still find it hilarious that nit wits like Dana and Hube think CBS news has a liberal bias.
jason330> they get offended when you make fun of how they blame all of their problems on the liberal media and call it a conspiracy theory but until they start explaining how the General Electric and Westinghouse corporations are liberal institutions you really can’t call it anything else.
It all boils down to one thing: there definition of “liberal” is “not Republican”. If you’re not actively promoting the Republican party you’re a liberal.
It’s all they have, folks, and after eight years of beating their chests, jerking off to bald eagles and seeing who can clap the loudest they’re desperately trying to reinvent themselves as “conservative” because Bush wrecked the Republican brand so terribly. Once George and Cheney left it became obvious what it meant to be a Republican; a big government jingoist with nothing in common with members of your own party besides a list of shared grievances.
there/their
PS> bitching about traditional media and chiding it for being an “eighteenth century technology” is a little rich coming from a blog that spends 90% of its energy cut and pasting from “MSM” sources and commenting on them.