Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
FEELINGS ARE BORING
KISSING IS AWESOME -
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.
-
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.
-
"I'm also skeptical about the public demand for quality freelance journalism; the newspapers publish all those Paris Hilton stories for a reason - because that's what most people are genuinely interested in."
That's a fair point. However the reason I suggested a not-for-profit model is precisely to deal with that economic implications of that fact.
Now, if quality freelance journalism doesn't make a difference in the world, then there isn't really any point in taking this further. But it is an article of belief for me that it does.
-
David Haywood: Salon in a number-8 wire incarnation? I am IN.
-
Of course, a web site is pull rather than push, and if the aim is to get better journalism to the public, then its not much of a solution.
It's not as bad as all that. When a good story breaks, other outlets pick it up. If our putative trust-funded outlet finds something good, others may pick up the story and run with it. Mission accomplished.
-
A few more notes:
- a trust could simply commission articles, rather than publishing them itself, and leave the copyright with the author. That would keep the wolf from the door for the Ngs (and Saarinens and Hoskings) of this world.
- if a trust did have publishing as its mission, online delivery is far cheaper than print or broadcast. Other media could always reprint or broadcast it ("this article/documentary/audo interview first appeared at the New Zealand Reporters Trust website").
- Would there be practical or ethical barriers to commercial media organisations carrying privately-financed stories? Given the frequency with which they print barely paraphrased press releases now, the answer is clearly NO on the first count if not the second.As to who would fund this, Russell omitted my subsequent comment, which I will now repeat: if you would kindly die and leave your vast estate to said trust, that would speed things up. Thank you.
Seriously, the biggest and most successful charitable enterprises of this kind have their origins in bequests to supply the original capital, even if they subsequently earn revenue from commercial activities.
Who would run it? A trust whose mission was merely to fund and commission work just needs an editorial board and a clerk or two. A trust whose mission is publishing probably needs a legally constituted subsidiary to commission and then manage the publishing enterprise. In either case the initial choice of trustees is probably the most critical decision.
-
PS: if you would kindly die and leave your vast estate to said trust, that would speed things up. Thank you.
-
Who is a journalist?
Who is an artist?
Who is a musician?
Who is a scientist?
These are different questions from "who is an architect", "who is a doctor", and "who is a lawyer."
As far as the Guardian and its funding go: l pledge $100 this year and every year that I am employed, towards any trust or non-profit body that will employ journalists, in any medium, to research, and write or produce really good New Zealand stories.
I bet if a few other PA posters and lurkers did the same, we could get an article or two out of it at rates that would be better than the current freelance ones.
-
I think a contradiction Grant could explore is why it's not OK to legislate for charity, but it is ok to legislate on other Christian moral grounds.