In The Blogs

Nonprofit Journalism

| Sat Mar. 7, 2009 11:26 AM PST

Newspapers have been dropping like flies recently, and because of that a lot of chatter in reporting circles these days revolves around the possibility

that serious journalism in the future will mostly be done by nonprofits, funded by foundations and grants. Today the New York Times writes about a San Francisco-based magazine that's followed that model for over 30 years:

Mother Jones has become a real-life laboratory for whether nonprofit journalism — a topic of the moment in mainstream news media circles — can withstand a deep recession.
....Back in the fall, when the economic downturn intensified, and the plight of print publications became more dire, Mother Jones suffered, despite its position of not being in it for the money. Advertising plummeted, down 23 percent in 2008, and some of the big donations the magazine depends on didn’t come through.

Actually, things are better than that makes it sound. Advertising is a pretty small chunk of our revenue, and overall fundraising has stayed pretty strong, all things considered:

[Jay] Harris, the magazine’s publisher, said the company met its fund-raising targets last year, although before the economic turmoil in the fall the magazine thought it would exceed goals.
But small-time donations and subscriptions have held steady at Mother Jones, to the surprise of its editors, who figured that the downturn would have taken more of a toll and that the election of Barack Obama would have a negative effect on raising money for liberal causes.
About half of the magazine’s yearly revenue is from major grants and donations. The magazine often seeks donations for specific projects, as it did in recent years to staff its Washington bureau at a time when many news organizations had been scaling back there. The bureau opened in late 2007 with eight people.

The Times failed to note MoJo's groundbreaking hiring of new blogging staff last year, but aside from that it's a decent piece about one possible future for investigative journalism. Namely, us. Check it out.

(And you should subscribe! Only 15 bucks for the first year. Just click here.)

Advertisement

Kevin Drum is a political blogger for Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here.

Comments

Subscription notices

Submitted by sal on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 1:32 PM PST.

I used to subscribe, but got tired of all the re-up notices. The first couple notices came before the first issue arrived. Really annoying. My brother had the same experience.

How 'bout University-funded

Submitted by ferd (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 2:50 PM PST.

How 'bout University-funded reporter/professors? The University imprimatur might throw some weight.

Non-profit means what?

Submitted by Barry on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 3:08 PM PST.

Oh boy! I have been waiting for this one… “non-profit” news reporting. Ready for a lesson, Kids? Non-profit is one way to incorporate a business. You can still make a profit. In fact, The Foundation for National Progress is the official corporate name of Mother Jones. Every “non-profit” must file with the IRS an annual report on Form 990 that is basically their “1040” form showing income and expenses. You may view any non-profit’s 990 at www.guidestar.org. By law, they must make them available to the public. FNP is a little behind…the latest posted form is for 2006. In tax year 2006, this “non-profit” had revenue of $9.7 million and expenses of $9.2 million. Not a bad profit. Total revenues that past four years were $33 million. They spent $200,000 in 2006 on travel and conventions. And you thought just Wall Street tycoons partied up! Salaries? Russ Rymer is listed as no longer on the payroll and was paid $160K - for what? Steve Katz, mentioned in this article, works 37.5 hrs/week and made $138K. Likewise, two others made the same amount. But John Harris, president and publisher at that time, made $171K. I assume that Steve got a promotion and is now in that range. How are those salaries for a group that decries CEOs, Wall Street tycoons, and Republican Fat Cats? I have no problem with them being paid these salaries, btw. My issue is hypocrisy. Remember, follow the money. No entity stays in business without money. MJ can boast being a “non-profit” but all that means is they don’t have to disburse gains to shareholders. Businesses can call themselves a “for profit” or a “non-profit” or a “government” – they all need money and they all must generate a profit to stay “in business.” I can't wait to see the 2007 and 2008 Form 990s!

Mother Jones Rocks

Submitted by Ian Kaplan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 3:36 PM PST.

I have subscribed to both the Nation and Mother Jones. I finally ended up canceling my subscription to the Nation (twice, in two bouts of subscription). In the end the Nation was tedious. And I despise Alexander Cockburn. It was irritating seeing them print that strident old relic of the dead left. In contrast, Mother Jones is constantly fresh and fascinating. They have printed fascinating articles on a wide range of topics. I particularly appreciate the search for truth in these articles, rather than political correctness. In the last issue, on agriculture and biofuels the conclusions were those that come from information, not dogma. Mother Jones also published one of the most interesting and informative articles I've read on the controversy about the nuclear warhead modernization program. Again, there was information without diatribe. I pretty much read ever issue from cover to cover. In the case of the Nation a lot of us subscribed to support an anti-Bush publication. In the case of Mother Jones, I subscribe because it is a fascinating and informative read.

Mother Jones Rocks

Submitted by Ian Kaplan (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 3:39 PM PST.

Subscriptions

Submitted by Chasm (not verified) on Sat Mar. 7, 2009 6:27 PM PST.

One of those door-to-door magazine guys came by my place about 2 months ago. Normally, I'm pretty good at blowing those people off, but this guy was a great salesman with alot of charisma and he convinced me to give him a break. I chose Mother Jones as my subscription, for no other reason than I read your ass every day and I felt like I owed. Well, I still haven't received my magazine yet, and unless it shows up soon, next years door-to-door guy is going to get an earfull.

Subscription Problems?

Submitted by Clara Jeffery on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 9:23 PM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

Sorry about that, it can take awhile for those third party vendor subs to show up. But you can get help with all subscription-related things by going here: http://www.motherjones.com/about/subscriptions/customer-service

Re subscribing: I have a

Submitted by MaynardHandley on Sun Mar. 8, 2009 2:57 PM PDT.

Re subscribing: I have a real problem with the deification of motherhood in this (and pretty much all) human societies. Not all, but certainly a large number, of our problems are the result of overpopulation. A goodly fraction of those remaining are a consequence of people who can't control their own lives concluding (after being told so repeatedly by society and the media) that all their problems will be solved by having kids. Given all this, I can't in good conscience support with money a magazine that happily jumps on this bandwagon.

Non-profit Newspapers

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Mar. 9, 2009 3:51 AM PDT.

tagged as:

solution

Maybe now that the Dems control both Congress and the WH funding for public broadcasting will increase to where it needs to be to play a meaningful role in public discourse. Regardless of the fact that the Newshour gave Juan Williams a job when nobody else would (or should have), it's still the best news show on the dial (oops, I showed my age). Bob