Hard News: Trust. Us.
100 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Just an observation: There is nothing wrong with having Paris Hilton on the cover, so long as her interesting (c'mon, everyone loves a bit of celeb gossip) flim-flam helps pay for some serious journalism on page five. After all, isn't that how a good tabloid is meant to work?
-
i used to read crikey in the early days and it was... sparse.
they got a couple of huge shout-outs from the msm and then they were off.
pretty sure this idea would track the same, imho.
It's successful and influential because it is always topical, often has different content from the MSN and always has genuine analysis rather than bland description. The readership is pretty high-powered too; it's regularly cited as an authorative source inside the beltway (but it is possibly an exclusive beltway readership - public and corporate).
-
paris hilton?
i vote tom doesn't get to play.
anyone with me?! :)
-
Well, granted, everyone hates Paris, but you get my drift.
-
What Stephen suggests reads like Spot.Us, self-described pre-alpha community funded reporting:
'Spot Us' is a nonprofit that allows an individual or group to take control of news in their community by sharing the cost (crowdfunding) to commission freelance journalists to write important, or uncovered news stories.
-
Reading their site, Spot.Us relies on people votting "with their money" - i.e. its passing the hat to fund specific stories and investigate specific issues (and they stick it on their website and push it into syndication). This is a possible model, and there's already the infrastructure for the payment side at Fundable (think "Pledgebank with a credit-card interface").
-
Lots of interesting discussion.
I don't think any pay to read model is going to work online. I'd be very unlikely to cough up a dollar to read an article even if the first half interested me. I also wouldn't shell out $100 for a subscription to such a thing, or to support it. I'm much more likely to support good causes with my skills than money, as I have more of the former than the latter!
To me an interesting model would be a trust which provided an environment by which freelance journalists could research and produce stories, and then hawk them around the various media outlets for publication. The trust could take a moderate overhead which could cover overheads, administration, and build for expansion. The brand could become known for quality researched journalism - features, media commentary etc, and be something that newspaper editors look to with interest.
If the trust ever got enough money it could look at an internship. Hire a freelance journalist for 6 months on a retainer, enough to keep them going so that the freelance fees would build it up to a reasonable salary.
I'd be very wary about getting into publishing. Publishing carries legal risk, and involves setting up a whole infrastructure to do it. One thing at a time would make much more sense. Journalism and publishing can be relatively distinct activities, and it'd be nice, given the views of a lot of people on here about how publishers have affected the quality of journalism, to keep the two separate.
-
To me an interesting model would be a trust which provided an environment by which freelance journalists could research and produce stories, and then hawk them around the various media outlets for publication.
Kindof an agency model then?
The problem is supporting it - at current freelance rates, there's barely enough for freelancers to scrape by, let alone pay overheads. And while the trust could press for more money, that's very much against the trend inthe NZ media.
-
screw that. i understood the idea to mean that this model is a complete alternative to the msm one.
the writers here get paid by here, to publish stuff here. if the msm wants to pick it up they pay.
rb, i'm assuming that public address becomes an op-ed site with additional journalistic content?
-
Well, Russell's original proposal was about funding content wih the goal of using the MSM for wider distribution. But people seem to want to be a lot more ambitious.
I love the idea of a DIY site - if only to make Jane Clifton scream louder about demarcation...
-
<sighs and pretends he got to be in the club too>
didn't you see that "..." that's it you're in. We're all in!
-
<sighs and pretends he got to be in the club too>
Your career or blogging: choose.
-
Personally, I see having a trust that funds/commissions stories as being a separate project from running a (profitable?) online news site. The two projects might well have a lot in common and support each other, but I think they would be best run by different people.
One reason is that I feel confident that if I solicit contributions for the commissioning of stories, I will indeed find writers to write them and an outlet to publish them. Any monies collected, even if a small sum, need not go to waste. On the other hand, there are a great many uncertainties in running a full-fledged news publishing operation, even if it's bare bones and a co-operative/other not-for-profit structure, and I would feel bad about pitching for donations to do so.
-
Personally, I see having a trust that funds/commissions stories as being a separate project from running a (profitable?) online news site. The two projects might well have a lot in common and support each other, but I think they would be best run by different people.
I think you're right. But if Dave H wants to make a go of trying to do a local Crikey, I'll happily support that too.
-
Your career or blogging: choose.
not at all. i could write about local body politics, or... fishing(?) to my hearts content.
have spent the last few years testing the waters. as long as i steer well clear of the thordon bubble and/or the terrace, anything goes.
-
not at all. i could write about local body politics, or... fishing(?) to my hearts content.
But would it? Be content, I mean?
(I don't think mine would. Fortunately, the public service doesn't do stuff in PN)
-
I would also be more than happy to contribute to better quality NZ freelance journalism. This is a good idea, Russell. I hope there is a way to make it really work.
-
A straw-man structure:
A trust with a deed centred on the production of articles of national interest in the liberal tradition (whatever that is - that might mean classically liberal as well) - philosophically like the Scott Trust but with a much narrower scope. No doubt someone like Graeme could propose a suitable legal vehicle - perhaps an incorporated society is better. I don't know, but something that can accept charitable donations is good.
A board of trustees, who are slowly but regularly replaced by a semi-democratic procedure.
They employ a commissioning editor on a small honorarium. This need not be a full-time position to start with.
The commissioning editor pays writers some suitable premium above the going rate, but otherwise on the normal terms for copyright (which I think typically goes to the entity paying, yes?) The trust then makes the resulting work available under a reasonably unrestrictive license.
The thing I like about this narrowly focussed enterprise is that if it only raises a few thousand, then it can commission one story. That was worth doing. If it raises much more than that, it can scale as required, and begin to invest money for future income. It will not end up owning expensive physical assets or running enterprises where commercial considerations start to conflict with the mission.
Now, the local Salon/Crikey knockoff might well source articles from the trust, or have staff writers who are in part funded by it. But it would have to stand on its own, and in the event of failure it wouldn't take the trust with it.
-
A trust with a deed centred on the production of articles of national interest
...
perhaps an incorporated society is better. I don't know, but something that can accept charitable donations is good.I forget the exact name (obviously they're charitable, but they also can last forever, as opposed to ordinary family trusts that must have a finite life), but there's a category of trusts that exists for the purpose of furthering the interests of a class of persons in society. The class cannot be too narrow, such as specified individuals or a family, but it's definitely possible to have a trust founded for purposes such as these. It would have to have its purpose as something like "For the encouragement of journalistic endeavour", and grant the trustees some discretion in deciding how much to pay, and what would qualify. A real trust lawyer would have to be involved in this kind of drafting, because the potential for buggering it up is so enormous.
Incorporated societies have their own hassles. To form one, 15 persons must agree on the articles of incorporation. Officers must be appointed, regular meetings held, etc. The big hurdle for "us" is the number of people who must unite and remain united in order to keep a society going. A trust is much more easily run "hands off" by the establishing person or persons, because you only need three (always have an odd number) trustees and they can all be professionals.
-
Surely the idea of printing it off is dying anyway with the final appearance of viable electronic ink devices? At the very least the content should be compatible with at least some of those devices.
-
The commissioning editor pays writers some suitable premium above the going rate, but otherwise on the normal terms for copyright (which I think typically goes to the entity paying, yes?)
Only if the writer is stupid (or, more likely, bullied into it by the buyer).
The basic rule for freelancers: never give up copyright.
-
I'd do at least $100. The best model IMHO is to initially put money in to provide seed cash for starting a business that will ultimately be self-funding and compounding the resources available to it.
Seeking bequests and endowments to build the fund more rapidly. I can see anyone other than the Right who control the major newspapers in NZ perceiving value in this.
It my even be that the growing fear of a competitor NOT funded by overseas billionaires might rein in the propaganda excesses of the local voices of aforementioned billionaires.
The Herald right now is generally appalling. The DomPost used to look bad by comparison, but they are neck and neck now for being overt propaganda organs for the folks would like to own everything.....
-
Well that didn't take long. Superb effort. It's the right idea at the right time in the right hands.
-
It my even be that the growing fear of a competitor NOT funded by overseas billionaires might rein in the propaganda excesses of the local voices of aforementioned billionaires.
How old are you, Steve? Obviously not old enough to have been reading "Granny Herald" before 1996, when it was an bastion of enlightened liberalism under the benign eye of Comrades Wilson and Horton. Not.
And since you want to nut off about rich prick newspaper proprietors, isn't it ever so slightly ironic that a major motivation for the foundation of the Scott Trust was to protect the Manchester Guardian's new proprietor from having to sell the it to pay death duties, after the sudden death of his father and brother. I don't mean to diminish John Scott enormous respect for his father, and the newspaper he edited for so long, but I guess some rich pricks aren't so bad after all.
-
I love the idea of a DIY site - if only to make Jane Clifton scream louder about demarcation...
You don't think writers like Jane Clifton mightn't constantly be on the lookout for interesting new gigs that might allow them to work beyond the parameters of what they're currently doing?
Or that a hypothetical Crikey-like site might not benefit from recruiting a few high-profile eyeball-capturing names at the outset?
Like the Huffington Post, except, y'know, properly paid.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.