I pretty much agree with what Mark said in his post - we just recently
exchanged some emails on this very issue.

My thought is that The Newstandard (http://newstandardnews.net/) is a
living model of the ideal. They are non-profit and completely member
funded. No foundations, no advertisers, no underwriting, no for-profit
anything. They are definately struggling though, so Mark is right
about it being imperative that it is desired by people etc... It's
hard to get a large and sustainable audience without some serious
money to turn out quality material. Perhaps Truthout which is mostly
funded by members is a more successful example (although they have
accepted a few small grants recently).

I agree with Mark that some non-profits fail, and that internal fights
happen. That said I do think taking that privatized profit interest
out of the equation is a good thing - I don't really see a down side
to being non-profit if you are not interested in making money.

I can see the point with funders still having too much power, but I
think having an organization with a non-profit, public interest
mandate, and ideally having funders with the same mandate- is overall
a good thing.

Again, for me it's ideal to maximize the power and role of individual
members/citizens. I understand growing the power of member funding is
difficult but to me it's a battle worth fighting. I personally
believe that part of media education should be encouraging citizens to
fund non-profit media. Probably equally as important is fighting for
some kind of independent trust derived from government sources and
levies that would go to funding independent non-profit media. I've
heard of the idea of having a leavy on TV's or making part of the
licensing fees corporations pay for using to public airwaves go
towards such a independent trust. -It's an ideas who's time has come
in my opinion.

What Mark and I agree on - I'll repeat here:

"An ideal media landscape is a diverse, pluralistic one. We know that
the corporate media system has many limitations, and having this
system overwhelmingly dominate what we hear, see, and read calls for a
rejuvenation of all forms of independent media." (for-profit
independent media included)

Steve

Quoting:

>
> In a message dated 10/28/2006 9:14:15 AM Central Standard Time,
> writes:
>
> I think building new community news organizations is usually the way
> to go, but it
> depends on the situation. But I think it is important that they be
> non-profit
> incorporated, as we have seen what has happened to for-profit
> alternative daily
> newspapers - they have been bought up by one corporation, and in many
> cases that
> corporation has removed the unprofitable local content that was once
> available.
>
> Being non-profit also means that one person or group of people won't
> be creating a
> community website in order to create a golden egg for later in life =
> selling out when
> the time is right.
>
> Sustainable long term community media should be non-profit and independent.
>
> -I do still respect community media projects that are for-profit (I
> think coastsider.com
> falls in this category), but I do not think it is the long term
> solution to our
> privatized media system.
>
> Just my two cents,
> Steve
>
> Quoting Bill Densmore :
>
>
> Steve and I have discussed this and I think there are room for both models.
>
> The reality is if you look at non-profit media, it also too often fails.
> Look at what happened to non-profit FM classical stations. Look at what
> happened to the fight over Pacifica.
>
> I've also been witness to many non-profit boards in advocacy areas fight
> over whether they were going to go centrist or be more aggressive -- and this
> split the boards apart.
>
> Also, non-profit media is still responsible to funders. If a major funder
> indicates that they don't like the direction that the non-profit
> media project
> is going, they can pull the rug out from under the project. In short, the
> same issues of compromise occur in non-profits as in for-profits,
> only they are
> a bit different in terms of why they occur.
>
> I will rest my case with what has happened to NPR and PBS in America. Yes,
> there is a government component to those two entities, but the issue extends
> far beyond that and includes their major non-government funders.
>
> Non-profit status is no guarantee of purity or sustainability. You still h
> ave to kow tow to funders, who although they don't make a profit, are still
> stakeholders, even if not shareholders.
>
> There's also the issue that there is limited non-profit money. Utlimately,
> the new media is going to have to prove its value in the marketplace. It is
> going to have to be desired by people. They are going to have to
> monetize it
> one way or the other.
>
> Mark Karlin
> Editor and Publisher
> BuzzFlash.com
>

In a message dated 10/29/2006 8:03:00 PM Central Standard Time,
writes:
Mark
wrote-->But there are plenty of Democrats and progressives with big
money.If that is so, and I have no reason to doubt it, why have Dems
and progressives been so slow in supporting progressive radio?  The
problems of Air America have been all over the media (I'm in radio and
I know a lot of the people involved), but beyond their financial woes is a
bigger story-- a number of progressive talk hosts (not all of whom are
from Air America) are doing the Lord's work, telling the truth and
exposing the other side of the issues; yet they have few if any
sponsors.  I may not like commercial radio, but I love the fact that
people like Thom Hartmann, Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Rachel Maddow,
and others are trying their best to inform a public that has been sadly
mis-led by the right-wing noise machine.  I am puzzled by how few
progressive organisations advertise or actively support these talk show
hosts.Donna L. Halper, Journalism Dept. Emerson College Boston
MA    

this has been a very hot topic in the progressive new media community.
there are many theories about why wealthy progressives don't invest as much as
right wingers in media infrastructure.
 
i have many thoughts about this.  but my most basic one is that
wealthy progressives, for the most part are not marketers nor do they understand
the power of television and radio as vehicles for shaping the mass culture and
political context (or "frame" to be Lakofian).  the modern republican party
is built on a marketing mindset.  within that mindset media is an extension
of advertising and branding.  wealthy progressives, on the whole, both
don't understand this approach or have contempt for it (and much of it certainly
deserves some disdain).  but this is what works.  we are a marketing
culture.  the old media in particular has now virtually merged with
the marketing culture: news is entertainment is advertising.  the today
show is a cross-promotional advertisement with some mcheadlines of news. 
the media sells stories in the same way hollywood does.  iraq for years was
a hollywood drama, without the bodies.
 
in wag the dog, robert de niro tells dustin hoffman, playing a hollywood
producer, that he needs a "pageant" to divert attention from the little sex
scandal surrounding the president.  that is what the republicans do so
well. they provide pageants for the media.
 
to counter this, you need an altenative media infrasctructure backed by
billions of dollars.  wealthy progressives are more interested in giving
money to candidates than in laying the media and think tank infrastructure for
the long term.
 
the republicans understand how to build brand identity and shape mindsets.
wealth progressives, for the most part, don't.
 
mark karlin
editor and publisher
buzzflash.com