Philanthrojournalism

The term Philanthrojournalism has appeared in sources based United Kingdom.[1][2][3][4][5] Public service media is a related term that refers to organizations that receive government funding starting with radio in the 1920's[6] and projects like Wikipedia.[7] Think tank journalism has been used as well.[8]

Although nonprofit journalism dates back to the start of the Associated Press in 1846, the first group dedicated to investigative journalism was the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), which formed in 1977. Moreover, journalist Charles Lewis founded the Center for Public Integrity in 1989.[9] Since then, many other nonprofits have proliferated firstly in the United States, and then, elsewhere in the world. Due to their alternative funding models, many of these organizations have contributed deeply to investigative journalism. For example, ProPublica won Pulitzer prizes within a few years of its founding.[9]

The number of nonprofit investigative reporting centers has escalated from only three in the late 1980s to over 40 in 2007, with centers originating in countries such as Romania, the Philippines, Jordan, and South Africa. Four global conferences on investigative journalism since 2000 have attracted some 2,000 journalists from more than 50 countries.[10] There have been many initiatives to increase transparency and accountability in funding to improve editorial independence. For example, the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN), formed in 2009, is a network of hundreds of nonprofit news organizations that must meet their journalistic standards.[11][12]

The proliferation of investigative centers ranges from state-oriented initiatives to local grassroots-based initiatives.[13] The state or region-based model tends to be more sustainable, as it is usually funded by foundations in the same area.[14] State-oriented centers such as the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism and New England Center for Investigative Reporting have garnered success and been suggested as viable alternatives to the nationwide news outlets.[15] Likewise, there are an increasing number of local-level investigative centers, in places such as Baltimore and Texas, making their narrow-focus even more relatable to local readers.[15]

The distinct business model distinguishes philanthrojournalism from other types of journalism. As mainstream media has struggled in terms of revenue, nonprofit journalists have turned increasingly to the nonprofit model.[16] A recent study at American University, revealed that foundations had contributed to approximately $128 million to community and investigative reporting nonprofits between 2005 and 2009.[17] Investigative journalism in particular has been argued as being a difficult proposition for for-profit organizations, but can thrive when supported by foundations and donors.[17]

The CCIR relies heavily on individual donations, which average $100 to $200 and make up 30 to 50 percent of its revenue.[9] The executive director of CCIR, Bilbo Poynter, has argued that a large number of donors could also increase competition and therefore the need for credibility and transparency for both donors and the investigative centers.[9] Many organizations, such as ProPublica, are publishing the salary of their journalists as well as the center sources of revenue on their websites.[14] Many centers, such as the Voice of San Diego, are also utilizing hybrid models of philanthropy and private sector revenue combinations.[13] The Bay Citizen, for example, bases its funds on four sources of revenue.[16] Sustainability has been an expressed concern for some.[18][19]

Between May 2010 and September 2011, the Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project implemented a wide-scale study on 46 national-level nonprofit investigative organizations created after 2005, and examined their transparency, political bias, number of revenue streams and productivity.[20] The study showed that, within that time period, the news organizations, which have multiple funding sources and are transparent about funding have a more balanced ideological perspective. Out of the organizations studied, 56% were labelled as ideologically skewed.[20] Likewise, the most ideologically skewed organizations tended to be funded mostly or entirely by one parent organization. More often than not the topics covered on these sites correlated with the political orientation of their donors. For example, while the liberal-oriented American Independent News sites favored discussions of organized labor and the environment, the more conservative Watchdog.org, meanwhile, focused on government policies and their inefficiency and waste.[20] Examples of sites with the most balanced coverage included ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, which were also among the most visited in the sample.[20]

David Westphal in 2009 expressed support for foundation-funded journalism, but worried that many of the news organizations report based on their funder’s interest areas.[21] Moreover, Robert Arnove and Nadine Pinede (2007) undertook a study on the "big three" US-based foundations – Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie – and revealed that they play the role of unofficial planning agencies, have a very US-centric model, and utilize a very "elitist, technocratic approach to social change."[22] Likewise, Sean Stannard-Stockton, claims that in addition to maintaining the status quo, many foundations use “hard power” to “shape events by providing or withdrawing grants” thereby creating a dependence by nonprofit organizations.[22] Bob Feldman (2007) added that the processes used to gain such funding are modeled in “safe, legalistic, bureaucratic activities and mild reformism” and creates a “climate of secrecy” as the foundations domesticate their agendas.[23]

Harry Browne finds that the removal of direct commercial pressures could allow reporters more time to work on a story, by freeing them to pursue less-popular topics and by reducing the likelihood of pressure from an owner or advertiser.[19] Browne also notes that if philanthrojournalism seeks to remain transparent by constantly informing the public about its ultimate source of subsidy and the work of its donors, and if it also seeks to do so in a democratic manner, philanthrojournalism could achieve more editorial independence.[24] ProPublica, as well as many other nonprofit centers have published details of their funding revenues, the salaries of their reporters and the ideological perspectives of their donors.[25] Industry networks that are member-driven, such as the Investigative News Network (now Institute for Nonprofit News) require full members to be a registered charity and provide public transparency into their funding.[26]

Many organizations cooperate with for-profit media and even subsidize investigations to use their broad networks for their news stories. Most print and broadcast commercial outlets have expressed openness to collaborating with nonprofit partners, especially around investigative journalism.[27] In some cases, the centers had formal arrangements with revenue exchanged, whilst in other cases, collaboration was on a story-by-story basis and did not include revenue, but only a sharing of resources and expenses.[28] For example, ProPublica won a 2010 Pulitzer Prize in collaboration with the New York Times for an investigative report on one hospital’s emergency response to treating flood victims of Hurricane Katrina.[29] The Center for Investigative Reporting also produces print and broadcast reports under contractual agreements with public and commercial media outlets.[30] Many mainstream media outlets have found themselves in need for such collaborations due to their financial struggles.[31] ProPublica’s Richard Tofel argues that investigative reporting will never become obsolete, as it increasingly competes with declining mainstream media that focuses on daily politics.[32]

Philanthrojournalism has provided an alternative business model to for-profit journalism. By mostly being digital natives with less reliance on ads, nonprofit outlets have grown a significant niche.[33]

In 2009, mainstream media faced a revenue decline of up to 25-30 percent.[34] Commercial media has faced a huge financial collapse and has therefore been forced to lay off many reporters and the reduce the size or completely shut down its foreign bureaus.[34] Nonprofit news outlets often hire experienced journalists who have left their mainstream media careers.[16] A PEW research study in 2010 reveals that while demand for substantive news is high, the commercial press has not been fulfilling its social responsibility role, especially in terms of investigative journalism.[20] For example, in Los Angeles news outlets, only 1.9% of a 30-minute newscast was devoted to civic affairs, and 3.3% of Los Angeles Times news reporting was devoted to local government news.[30] Moreover, readers are increasingly choosing internet-based news as a source of information over print news.[30] Nonprofits, unlike mainstream media, have tended to be greater pioneers of civic journalism, as they focus most of their news on civic affairs.[30]

Major nonprofit news outlets, such as the Center for Public Integrity, ProPublica and the Center for Investigative Reporting, have won Pulitzer Prizes, which has boosted their fundraising efforts in turn.[17][20] According to a study, many reporters felt the nonprofit funding model gives them greater freedom to choose stories based on merit and public impact rather than popularity.[35] Unlike mainstream media, which relies more on business strategies, nonprofit news outlets may not need to show their philanthropic funders an immediate return on investment.[36] Their nonprofit status also allows them to be exempted from federal taxes in the US.[37]

Many nonprofit centers receive their revenue through a total or partial combination of the following strategies: membership donations, corporate sponsorships or advertising, charging other media for content, providing services such as analyzing and posting date, training students and journalists and creating an endowment.[38] Moreover, unlike mainstream media, which more often than not, continues to utilize print versions, most nonprofit news outlets are digital-born. They can, therefore, focus all their resources on hiring technicians or reporters with greater expertise in digital media. Many are utilizing social media, which, consequently, is increasingly bringing them closer to younger generations.[38]

Rebecca Nee (2011) argues that philanthrojournalism could become an alternative to mainstream media. Nee emphasizes the decreasing role of mainstream news media, as she cites the 2010 State of the News Media report, which claimed that circulation had dropped by one quarter since the 21st century.[39] Nee also adds that the digital revolution has fuelled an increasing number of readers to opt for online newspaper, allowing many digitally-native nonprofit investigative outlets to thrive in their area of digital expertise. Nonprofit news outlets are slightly in the lead over mainstream media in terms of digital innovation, as they can focus on their resources on doing so. Moreover, Nee argues that the narrow investigative scope of nonprofit news outlets allows them to not waste their resources on a daily journalism agenda.[40]

• Citizen journalism
• Creative nonfiction
• History of journalism
• History of American newspapers
• Journalism genres