June 5, 2009 | Read Time: 1 minute
With many of the nation’s most prominent daily newspapers in financial peril, many observers are pointing to foundations as a potential savior for the newspaper industry.
But would foundation ownership of newspapers really save the craft of journalism? Would foundations provide the creative environment and risk-taking agenda that many believe is necessary to make newspapers more competitive in a multimedia world?
Michael Kinsley, a Washington Post columnist and veteran magazine editor, isn’t so sure.
Mr. Kinsley writes that the Harper’s Foundation, which ran Harper’s Magazine during his tenure as editor, didn’t do much to inspire creativity. In fact, it was more conservative in its approach to journalism than many large newspaper companies.
“The board of directors was composed of civic idealists of the highest order, all donating their time to preserve this important national institution. Not only did each of them have ruthlessly conventional views about most subjects and an inability to imagine how anyone sensible could hold any other views, each of them also had many dear friends, equally high-minded and primed to take offense at any attempt to be interesting,” Mr. Kinsley writes. “Many of these friends had spouses who wrote short stories and children who had just graduated with remarkable grades and were president of the Foreign Policy Club.”
Would other foundations fall into the same mold if they were charged with overseeing newspapers? Would foundation culture be at odds with journalistic values? Under what conditions would foundation ownership help newspapers flourish? Click on the comments link below this post to share your thoughts.
