Another Newspaper Makes Its Inability to Turn a Profit an Asset

I was recently asked my opinion on the announcement of the Salt Lake Tribune being granted approval to become a nonprofit by the IRS. Specifically, the question was "What do you think of this model for newspapers?"

My quick answer:

For newspapers it is a lost cause—like all you can drink water for someone drowning in a river. Newspapers are a dead medium. Journalism is potentially a different story.

This is an old idea as indicated in the story. I think Tampa [Bay Times] went this route about 10 years ago. The Poynter Institute has advocated this for longer than that. On the one hand I like it from the standpoint of independence; however, I don’t think pragmatically it can be sustainable. It is just too expensive to fund journalism without advertising. And it doesn’t sound like they have any intention of giving up advertising.

On the other hand I don’t like it because I don’t think we should have a tax system that plays favorites (non-profit versus for-profit).

Here is a little more coverage from Nieman Lab. Unlike previous versions, this move to non-profit status is somehow more completely nonprofit. I am not quite clear if there is a material difference. I do find the appeal for charitable donations interesting in a kinda gross sort of way. Remember that every time you grant one entity tax-favored status, you increase the burden on all other tax-paying entities. Undoubtedly, many find this to be just fine.

In the religion of journalism, newspapers are a metaphorical holy land. There is a great sense that without them we cannot have credible news. Within this belief is a zealotry proclaiming local newspapers as the glue binding local society together. This like so many things in religion is not based on fact.

Our access to vacuous gossip and shallow conjecture is greater now than ever--we just don't have to pay so dearly for it and wait for it to be hand delivered to our doorstep. Newspapers like most of "professional" journalism have always delivered an array of facts that deserve more scrutiny and a biased narrative. That bias comes in one of three varieties: intentional slant to protect a powerful interest, unintentional slant repeating mistaken conventional wisdom, or simple ignorance introducing the ailment knowing enough to be dangerous.

I'm not saying non-professional journalism is better in any of these regards. I'm just pointing out that the only difference by and large is that being a professional really just meant you could (in some cases still can) get paid for it.