New Model Journalism

Tracking the media-funding revolution

Archive for the ‘Grant funding’ Category

Kingston launches comp for entrepreneurial journos

without comments

Kingston University is joining the US-led trend of encouraging entrepreneurial journalism through grants and prizes. The myNewsBiz competition, launched this week by Adam Westbrook, is offering £1000 for the best idea for a sustainable news business, and is open to students at any UK university.

The deadline for entries from 1 April 2011, and those shortlisted can look forward to a Dragons’ Den style pitching event in May.

Written by Alex

December 9th, 2010 at 6:25 am

Multilingual hyperlocal sets new standards of participation

without comments

A new twist on community-focused media comes with the launch of
the Alhambra Source, a multilingual hyperlocal east of Los Angeles.

The founders of the Alhambra Source hope that publishing in English, Chinese and Spanish will increase civil participation in the Californian town, which has a big Asian and Latin American population. The project, which is funded by a grant of $10 million, is run collaboratively by professional journalists, students and local residents.

Written by Alex

October 21st, 2010 at 3:37 am

Poynter offers grants for media start-ups

without comments

US journalism institute Poynter is offering seed funding to media start-ups. The grantmaker promises cash and training in entrepreneurial skills to help develop the ‘path to sustainability’ that so many journo start-ups lack. Applicants must have a good business model, and speed: the deadline for the application video is 12th October.

Written by Alex

October 4th, 2010 at 3:57 am

Posted in Grant funding,US

Daedalus on the future of news

with one comment

The latest edition of Daedalus is devoted to the future of news, and contains much that will be of interest to readers of this site.  It can all be read online here.

The lead article in the Spring 2010 edition of the journal, produced by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, is a consideration of the implications for democracy of the current state of the news by veteran sociologist and activist Herbert Gans.

Gans is strong on setting the scene within which the US media is currently operating and his long-established critical perspective on the nature of news, and journalists’ idea of their own mission is as stimulating as ever.

He concludes with a laudable seven-point plan for journalists and the media, if they want to contribute to civic democracy.  While much of this is framed in terms of a digital-era backdrop, it is hard to believe that he would not have been offering much the same prescription 20 years ago, however.

Robert Giles, the former editor and publisher of the Detriot News tackles the new economic models that are currently in play.  His initial survey replicates much of what you will find elsewhere on this site – with a couple of interesting examples that we have not mentioned so far – Circle of Blue Water and the Nieman Journalism Lab, for example.  He goes on to consider the endeavours so far by existing media groups to generate revenue from the web.  It is a useful summary, but does not give much about which to be optimistic.

There is much else in the Journal that is worth seeking out – particularly Paul Sagan and Tom Leighton on the Internet and the future of news and, Ethan Zuckerman on the International Reporting in the age of participatory media.

Written by Tim Dawson

May 6th, 2010 at 5:05 am

Bureau of Investigative Journalism opens for business

with one comment

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism launches today, promising to uncover some important stories over the next few months.

Written by Alex

April 26th, 2010 at 3:03 am

Posted in Grant funding,News

Gavin MacFadyen

with one comment

Foundations have become the key to funding investigative journalism in the USA

  • Similar initiatives are now underway in the UK
  • USA tax and libel laws made foundation-funded journalism a powerful force in that country, but conditions in the UK are not as favourable
  • University-based journalism projects have also created some important new models for investigative reporting

Today 75% of investigative reporting is not done by the media, but by foundations and foundation-supported NGOs.  There has been a profound shift away from newspapers and television.

That is why we started the Centre for Investigative Journalism – we were mainly former Panorama and World in Action staff.  We had realised that there was no training going on in the BBC or ITV for investigative reporters – that is why we set up the centre, as a means of training people.

We were frustrated that we couldn’t raise the funds to do the work that we wanted to do.  That has changed profoundly now.  We have raised more funds than have ever been raised before to do the things that we want to do, at least in the UK.

In the USA there are now 50 or 60 nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) that employ journalists. There are 65,000 unemployed journalists in the USA so there is no shortage of good people, and now organisations like Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Greenpeace all have research staffs.  And those organisations all raise money from foundations.

These foundations are now moving to the UK.

In 2006, Chuck Lewis formed the Center for Public Integrity (publicintegrity.org).  Lewis decided that he needed to raise funds to research corruption in Washington – no small task.  He was able to raise $4m a year, from lawyers’ groups, free-speech groups, civil-liberties groups.  As a result, the Center produced 160 publications and four bestselling books.  It was the most successful single investigative operation undertaken.  Lewis was a genius at raising money.

Lawyers were an important element of his work.  Lewis went to the biggest, toughest law firms he could find and asked them to help the Center, on a pro bono basis, to defend the Center’s work.  That said, libel laws in the States are nowhere near as tough as they are here. Armed with these prestigious law firms on his board, the law suits started to melt away.

The only successful legal challenge mounted against the Center for Public Integrity was by an oligarch.  Four years ago, he almost succeeded in sinking the entire investigative community in Washington.  The Center only survived because of the massive influx of lawyers to support it.

In the USA, foundations are now spending between $75m – $95m a year on niche and investigative reporting.

At Berkley university, in March each year, there is a big meeting of all these funders.  The biggest is a guy called Sandler who owns about a quarter of downtown Los Angeles.  He is not a modest man, in resources or anything else.  He funded the biggest investigative unit ever assembled in the USA – called Propublica (propublica.org).  It is based in New York in swank offices in midtown Manhattan.  It employs 28 journalists, 13 researchers and 20 production staff.  Propublica’s annual budget is $20m a year. They now have enough money to operate for three years.

The interesting thing about this kind of foundation-supported approach – with the money put up by one family – is that they devised a system of control, like CBS.  There is a corporate wing, that deals with all the money, and an editorial wing.  Communication between the two is allowed only if there is a lawyer in the room to keep an independent minute.  That is intended to ensure that commercial pressures are never brought to bear on the editorial side of the organisation.

The Bureau for Investigative Journalism is our attempt to do something similar in the UK.  It has now raised £2m. It is supported by, but not controlled by, City university.  The Bureau can produce research, but it can’t publish.  We could not find a single lawyer who would recommend that we could publish under our own imprint. We have to go through media outlets with deep enough pockets and liability insurance.  This is the only place in Europe where this is the case.

Libel costs are now estimated at £1,350 an hour.  And it could take two months work from a major law firm just to survive one bad judgement.  So, we must either operate out of Honduras or publish through The Guardian, C4, or whatever.  We also have options to publish through France, Germany, Sweden, Mexico and, the USA.  Currently we arein discussions with CBS Sixty Minutes, PBS Frontline and two outlets in French tv, all of whom are more favourably disposed to publish our work than anyone in the UK.

We have looked at the crowd-sourcing model for funding. There are several operations in the USA where that has been tried.  For example, the Voice of San Diego (voiceofsandiego.org) was started by four restaurant owners and a millionaire backer.  It looks at public health issues, fraudulent accounting and so on.  It has been successful.

I wish that outlets like National Public Radio could survive without money from huge and powerful foundations, but they can’t.  Every single outlet in public radio and television in the USA is funded by three large foundations.

The Park foundation is one, for example (parkfoundation.org).  Without it, there would be no social democratic television and no drama on USA television.  Today drama in the USA is better than here.  PBS Frontline is entirely funded by foundations and has an annual income of $40m a year. It is probably the best-regarded investigative programme in the world. It has roughly the budget that Panorama and World in Action had during the 1970s.

‘Spot.us’ is a new technique that organisations are using in the USA.  It announces, for example, that it wants to investigate road building or sewer malphesance.  The public can then decide whether to send in money, or not.  If the appeal generates enough money, the investigation goes forward.  That would not work in the UK because journalism is competitive and everyone would go after that story.  There is a lot of collegial and cooperate working in the USA that would not work in the UK.  In South Korea there is an internet newspaper with a staff of 30 and 27,000 reporters. Each reporter has his own web cam.  They produce all this stuff, the staff work as editors.  I think that it makes money, I don’t quite know how.  No one quite knows how anything on the web makes money.

Spot.us also has a model which is being investigated for Europe.  French, Italian and funders here, wondered if you could reduce journalism to niche groups – cultural, sports – and get money just for that. Then a federation of all those could be created.

There are some other novel models for funding journalism

The university funding model: unemployed journalists go to a university and extract a commission to train students. In exchange, the university provides research, publication and technical facilities.  That allows the journalists work to get out there – on the web, tv or radio.  There are 130 programmes of this kind in the USA at the moment, three of them very large.

Chuck Lewis has a big one at the American University in Washington (investigativereportingworkshop.org).  Their stuff is very good, so students, trained by professionals are now regularly reporting for the NYT, CBS Sixty Minutes and PBS Frontline.    Part of their success is down to having no material costs. The university has liability insurance.  That model has taken off in a number of universities.  The rich mix of people at most universities also adds to the mix.

Medill Innocence Project (medillinnocenceproject.org) at Northwestern University, is run by David Protess, who had been a Sunday Times reporter.  Protess put one law student with one journalism student to create 20 or 30 teams.  Each team was assigned a person on death row, and asked to exhaustively review their case.  There were plenty of people on death row in Illinois.  At the end of one year, the students’ investigations had led to 13 prisoners being freed because of police corruption, the planting of evidence and so on, uncovered by the students. The Chicago Sun Times jumped in and launched a similar campaign.  Total cost of the project was just $3,000 and it saved all these lives and turned around the way that journalism was perceived in that area.

Three or four UK universities are investigating this model – although you will, of course, have to reintroduce the death penalty.  Conventional funding from foundations, remains the main funder of investigations, however.

Ford Foundation started it, when they became independent of the Ford Motor Co.  It moved further and further to the left as time went on.  It has $35 billion to give away.  The Park Foundation gives away $240m a year.  Its money came from local newspapers in upper New York state.  Those papers provided the family with all the money.  The family split on left-right grounds and the left got the foundation.  They don’t even ask us questions about what we do with the money, they just say, ‘more power to your elbow’.

We get money from George Soros, from the Open Society Foundation.  We have not had a word of interference from them.  They just say ‘do your worst’, and we do our best.

The Lorana Sullivan foundation, is a British foundation. She was a Wall Street Journal journalist who ended up on The Observer for many years.  She was one of the best investigative financial journalists ever.

The Foundation supports the training of young female investigative reporters here and at Columbia in NY.  Her foundation supports the Centre for Investigative Journalism and will hopefully fund the Bureau.

These foundations support organisations such as Propublica, the Centre for Investigative Reporting at Berkeley, the Fund for Investigative Reporting in Washington DC, the Investigative Reporting Workshops at American University in Washington. Lowell Bergman (who was played by Al Pacino in The Insider) does the same at Berkeley. The Logan family give him $5m a year.

The real difference between here and the USA is that, in the USA, the laws are sympathetic to giving. If you can satisfy what is known as the 501c3 provision, you get a huge tax break for giving money.  So rich people get a tax write-off, plus they get a bit of a glow about their name. And this model is moving out of investigative reporting, into arts and sports journalism.

The Huffington Post has its own investigative bureau funded by the Huffington Foundation and another foundation.

The Fund for Investigative Reporting is very different.  It gives completion money or funds travel, if a reporter needs it.  The model is a similar fund in the USA that gives grants of $3 – $5000.  It’s not much money.  But, it was funding like that which gave Seymour Hersh the money to start My Lai – so is very powerful. We could not find anyone who would do that under the current tax law in the UK, however.  So, tax law is as important as the libel law.

Gavin MacFadyen is director of the Centre for Investigative Journalism and is one of the founders of the newly formed Bureau for Investigative Journalism, both foundation-funded non-profits and based at City University. These organisations were established to provide hands-on training for independent, skeptical journalism and to provide funds and resources to encourage high standards in public-interest reporting. He was a long-serving World in Action producer-director and has produced investigative current-affairs television in all the main channels in the UK and the USA.

Written by Tim Dawson

March 26th, 2010 at 8:16 am

Ian Reeves

without comments

There are an increasing number of examples in the United States of media outlets being funded by community donations

  • National Public Radio raises 30% of its revenue from ‘pledge drives’
  • News sites in New York, Chicago and Minnesota have also had some success with this model
  • A handful of individuals have also sought reader-funding for their work, although there aren’t any examples of this working particularly well

There are some interesting examples of community-funded journalism from the United States.  It is plausible to ask a diverse community to donate to something that they consider a common cause.  The election of Barak Obama is a great example.  He used digital media to mobilise and raise funds for his campaign.  He raised record sums, more than $600m dollars from more than 2.5m individuals. More than that half of that was from individuals who gave between $5 and $200.  The average online donation was $80.  So, yes, it is plausible.

But is it plausible to ask a diverse community to pay for journalism?  There is a news-based organisation that operates more foreign bureaus than any other mainstream USA media; that has an operating budget of $150m per annum. And its audience has grown 47% in the last decade.  It is called National Public Radio (NPR) – which is rather an old fashioned brand, but its model depends on donations from its listeners.  It is actually a network of radio stations.  They frequently have ‘pledge drives’.  Station presenters directly ask the audience for money.  About 30% of NPR’s revenue comes from that source.

WAMU is Washington-based.  Its main pledge drive is in February.  Last year it raised $1.2m directly from pledges.  NPR, although not entirely community-funded, demonstrates that people can be persuaded to pay for something that is free-to-air.

It is an established organisation, however, with an entrenched infrastructure.  Is the model workable further down the food chain of journalism?  Would it work on a smaller outfit, or help to fund a start-up?

There are news organisations where they are trying to make it work.  The Gotham Gazette (gothamgazette.com) regularly runs reader appeals, usually for specific purposes.  In a recent one, the Gazette said that it wanted to fund a reporter for a particular part of the city.  So, they ran a $25,000 funding campaign for a reporter to cover that beat – and they were successful.

Chi Town Daily News (chitowndailynews.org) – is another not-for-profit news site.  Most of its funding comes from grants – but it has raised $25,000 from reader appeals.  The site has now closed.  Its owners thought that it was falling 60% short of funding needed.

The most positive example is Minnpost.com, based in Minnesota.  All its content is free-to-view, but they have a ‘membership approach’ to raising funds.  Depending on the amount that you pledge, then you are accorded ‘media baron’ status, or ‘city editor’ or, ‘cub reporter’ for a $10 donation.  In the first 12 months, 1,250 people signed up to the Minnpost.com as donor members at different levels. It was initially funded by various grants, but they have a robust business plan.  They hope to break even by 2011 or 2012, and appear to be on line for that.

The Miami Herald has started soliciting donations from readers. You see at the bottom of all their online stories a tip-jar style feature.  The paper is making positive noises about how they are doing, but some argue that it amounts to begging, and will damage their brand in the eyes of prestige advertisers.

Could you scale it down for an individual journalist to use a similar model on line? There are examples which give some credence to the idea.  Chris Allbritton (back-to-iraq.com) is a former AP and New York Daily Post journalist.  He was covering Iraq for the NY Daily Post.  They called him home and he wanted to stay.  He had been doing a blog that had quite a lot of readers, so he asked his readers if they would stump up to keep him there as a non-embedded war reporter.  He got $15,000, which was not enough for what he wanted to do, but it was enough for him to stay there for several months, just writing for that audience.

In 2005, tech blogger, Jason Kottke (kottke.org), had a three-week fund raising drive, made $40,000 from ‘micro patrons’.  He found the pressure of that number of owners to be far too onerous –  1,500 bosses was too many.  His relationship with the readers changed.  He could not go on holiday.

Jim Hopkins, launched a blog about Gannett (gannettblog.blogspot.com).  He is a former editor from USA Today.  He set up a blog about the company and asked if followers would donate.  He wanted to raise $24,000 to cover the costs he felt he was incurring running this blog.  In six months he raised half of that, but again, the pressure grew too much.  “I have grown weary of people second-guessing how I live.  Imagine having dozens of parents chastising you for taking a vacation?” he said.

So, the idea of community funding is plausible; but it is not a silver bullet.  There aren’t any examples going on over here, to speak of.  But it is worthy of investigation.

Ian Reeves is director of learning at the department of journalism at the University of Kent and a former editor of Press Gazette. He has made a study of how ‘crowdfunding’ works in the USA, both in the national public radio network and on news websites and of how the approach might be applied in Britain.

Written by Tim Dawson

March 26th, 2010 at 8:16 am