Joan, appreciate your comments. I’ll react to one thing - the point about conservative states voting against abortion restrictions. The problem with taking hope from that is because, in my views, it’s far easier for conservatives to go into a voting booth and vote for it against a ballot measure. BUT, will they vote for a D over an R in the next election, even through those D’s might actually legislate in favor of reproductive rights? It’s far harder for them to vote for a Democrat candidate because the Republican political and media machine does such a great job demonizing any Democrat on the ballot. So those very voters are trained to fear and even hate Democratic candidates. So, vote against a ballot measure? That’s easy. But vote for a Democrat? That’s a bridge too far.
Bonnie, click on the link shown in the article for Press Forward. That will take you to the website with lots more info, way more than I could get into in this column. The group does have areas it wishes to concentrate on to try to get the most bang for their bucks.
There’s also a link to The NY Times article that explains the project pretty well. Let me know if for some reason you don’t see those.
I grew up in an era of newspapers, radio and typewriters and, like lots of others, have at times struggled with moving to the next stage of communications, whatever that happened to be. I share deep concerns over the direction of the country and related to that is the diminishing of news sources and sharing of differences of opinion that overall help us to form our own outlooks. I have concerns over the outlook for newspapers but fear more a lessening of news sources and identification of the person who authored the story. I feel that what is really a competition among news sources is a vital part of coming to the truth and the openness of society. I hope newspapers can find a way to remain a positive factor but even more that we can continue to have a multitude of sources, all helping to keep the others honest. The last thing we want, I'd think, is a government news source as the major decider of what is important and what is the truth.
About a decade ago, I suggested to the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA), a simple program improve the public’s understanding of the importance of the media to American democracy. RTDNA, working with local journalists and public schools, could develop a series of classroom lessons when schools were discussing civics and America history. These lessons would center on the First Amendment and why the founders believed that freedom of the press was important. I don’t think RTDNA ever did this. And the public’s negative view of news organizations continues. I hope that an infusion of money will save some media. But the public has to believe it reads, sees and hears from legacy media as well as digital publications. Until that happens, no amount of money will fix this negative perception.
I suspect the vast majority of financial assistance is coming from progressives since the former guy has convinced his millions that the media is the enemy of the people. If so, let’s give the help to honest journalism organizations. And your readers should subscribe to their local papers whether they would read them or not.
I don’t honestly know, Rod. You could be right. I had some experience working with a few of these finders during my career, both through my station and through a leadership role I had in my professional organization. Everything was less political then than it is today, but my sense at the time was political philosophy played no role in who got funded or how much a media organization received. The funders wanted more coverage, deeper coverage and a focus on important issues that were getting largely ignored.
They also liked to pay for innovative ways of telling stories that had more impact for readers/viewers.
I retired four years ago, so it’s possible things have changed.
More proselytizing and pious pronouncements bought and paid for by the people they oppose will make the purported problem worse. It is precisely why the problem swelled to the current state. This is a proposal to smother fire with kerosene.
Joan, appreciate your comments. I’ll react to one thing - the point about conservative states voting against abortion restrictions. The problem with taking hope from that is because, in my views, it’s far easier for conservatives to go into a voting booth and vote for it against a ballot measure. BUT, will they vote for a D over an R in the next election, even through those D’s might actually legislate in favor of reproductive rights? It’s far harder for them to vote for a Democrat candidate because the Republican political and media machine does such a great job demonizing any Democrat on the ballot. So those very voters are trained to fear and even hate Democratic candidates. So, vote against a ballot measure? That’s easy. But vote for a Democrat? That’s a bridge too far.
Would like to hear more about the objectives set by this donor group. Thanks
Bonnie, click on the link shown in the article for Press Forward. That will take you to the website with lots more info, way more than I could get into in this column. The group does have areas it wishes to concentrate on to try to get the most bang for their bucks.
There’s also a link to The NY Times article that explains the project pretty well. Let me know if for some reason you don’t see those.
Thanks, Dave. Exciting, hopeful news.
You've given me a lot to think about, Dave.
Thanks for wiring this, Dave!
Appreciate your input, as well as the work you’re doing for the foundation.
While I don’t doubt your household electrical skills, of course I meant to say thanks for “writing”!
I grew up in an era of newspapers, radio and typewriters and, like lots of others, have at times struggled with moving to the next stage of communications, whatever that happened to be. I share deep concerns over the direction of the country and related to that is the diminishing of news sources and sharing of differences of opinion that overall help us to form our own outlooks. I have concerns over the outlook for newspapers but fear more a lessening of news sources and identification of the person who authored the story. I feel that what is really a competition among news sources is a vital part of coming to the truth and the openness of society. I hope newspapers can find a way to remain a positive factor but even more that we can continue to have a multitude of sources, all helping to keep the others honest. The last thing we want, I'd think, is a government news source as the major decider of what is important and what is the truth.
I agree with that last point, John!
This is good news! I’ve been wondering where the big journalism-supporting foundations were! -L Tiffany
About a decade ago, I suggested to the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA), a simple program improve the public’s understanding of the importance of the media to American democracy. RTDNA, working with local journalists and public schools, could develop a series of classroom lessons when schools were discussing civics and America history. These lessons would center on the First Amendment and why the founders believed that freedom of the press was important. I don’t think RTDNA ever did this. And the public’s negative view of news organizations continues. I hope that an infusion of money will save some media. But the public has to believe it reads, sees and hears from legacy media as well as digital publications. Until that happens, no amount of money will fix this negative perception.
That’s exactly what I fear, too, Steve. It can’t hurt, but it remains to be seen if it helps.
It seems like our Iowa Writers Collaborative should consider upscaling and applying for these funds.
Excellent idea, Beth!
I suspect the vast majority of financial assistance is coming from progressives since the former guy has convinced his millions that the media is the enemy of the people. If so, let’s give the help to honest journalism organizations. And your readers should subscribe to their local papers whether they would read them or not.
I don’t honestly know, Rod. You could be right. I had some experience working with a few of these finders during my career, both through my station and through a leadership role I had in my professional organization. Everything was less political then than it is today, but my sense at the time was political philosophy played no role in who got funded or how much a media organization received. The funders wanted more coverage, deeper coverage and a focus on important issues that were getting largely ignored.
They also liked to pay for innovative ways of telling stories that had more impact for readers/viewers.
I retired four years ago, so it’s possible things have changed.
Thank you, Dave! This issue of community journalism must continue to be highlighted!
More proselytizing and pious pronouncements bought and paid for by the people they oppose will make the purported problem worse. It is precisely why the problem swelled to the current state. This is a proposal to smother fire with kerosene.