Would newspapers work as non-profits?

I recently and luckily got out of the industry about six months ago to a job at a private school, which is nonprofit.

If a newspaper got rid of its "big wig that knows nothing about the industry at the top" structure and was just run by a board, do you guys think that would help?

I know it sounds kind of funny and might have already been addressed on this board, but I am curious what you guys think.

Thanks.

 

It has been talked about a lot, but even St. Pete has had its troubles.

Here's a story about this:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/19/newspapers-new-york-times-internet-opinions-columnists_bloggers_revenue.html

It's an interesting idea. Whether it's feasible now -- even charity contributions are down all over the place -- is the question.

 

Really good informative article, but boy does that guy take forever to get the point.

 

Many newspapers are defacto non-profits right now, and it's not working.
Eliminate shareholders, whether public or private, and the bottom line is still bad.

 

As I understand it, most newspapers are still profitbable, just not nearly as much as they once were.

 

A year ago, that was true. A year ago, the stock market was at 12,000. It's now headed for half that. Everybody's going broke.

 

It's working here in Tupelo, as the late owner had the foresight to want the paper he created to carry on without him – and to not fall into evil hands.

That's not to say we are immune to what's happening all around us, but it probably does add a layer of protection. To this point.

I keep reading where it won't work in the larger universe, though. I figure those are stories written by for-profit newspaper consultants.

 

If we're going to be nonprofits, then we'd better get back to more news that serves the public rather than panders to it. Having been a news reporter in a previous life, here's what I mean:

Less inches wasted on the latest winter death storm du jour (leave that to TV fear-mongerers) and more inches on how your city is doing providing (and paying for) street and sidewalk snow removal.

Less blowhard preview stories on the stupid home-expo show (which, of course, the for-profit paper co-sponsors) and more coverage of the home mortgage crisis, and how local people are coping.

OK, enough from the soapbox. Back to cramming in a story about A-Rod's stupid cousin.

 

Well that would be the point, wouldn't it? To work as a non-profit – which doesn't mean not making money, by the way, but rather what you do wth the money you actually make and how it's reinvested – there has to be some form of communioty service performed, doesn't there?

 

I work at a non-profit news agency. We cover our specific niche and are funded by those who are interested in our niche. Been around for 15 years. We're small and work mostly with freelancers, but the model can work with the right people.

 

I think that's a possibility.

Honestly, I think it's time that corporations start getting away from hiring CEOs and management that get huge bonuses regardless of the company's performance.

Now I'm not about redistributing the wealth. I just think more money should be put into the product and not into the pockets of people that already have money to begin with their salary.