Comments on: The New York Times’ non-profit partners

By: amused

amused — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:31:02 +0000

The idea of The New York Times outsourcing content shivers me timbers.

And no, if they’re supplying two pages of content it’s nothing like a wire service.

And no, I don’t much care about profit or non-profit, just the idea of the Times subcontracting the production of pages.

Yikes.

By: Newshound

Newshound — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:40:58 +0000

Non-profits are often convoluted. The IRS form 990 is public information and on the Internet.

To see an example of how convoluted and intertwined a non-profit can be, Joe Kennedy’s oil is just one good place to start.

Non-profits are everywhere in our commerical society. Our universities are working with drug companies and many other developing technologies, as just another small example.

Of course we want our media to be honest and preserve the dignity and integrity of our country and its laws. Some of this will be dependent on the quality of the integrity of the news organizations themselves.

By: Al

Al — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 03:34:13 +0000

Can it be said that if a non profit news enterprise gets its material printed in a for profit publication that it gets a certain amount of prestige from what is likely the more established medium? OTOH, the MSM (NYT in this case) gets some material prepared for it at comparatively little cost other than the space it takes up, and at the savings of not having to go out and develop it on its own. I think it lends a legitimacy to the non profit that it might otherwise have struggled to attain, especially in the eyes of the casual reader.

By: Michael Pahre

Michael Pahre — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:39:31 +0000

I think your analogy to the Christian Science Monitor was on target.

If the NYT paid the CSM individually (and irregularly) for a series of articles during the week — that happen to add up to two pages of NYT content for the week — then you would probably not have noticed or raised it as an issue. But you seem slightly disturbed that they are paying for the two pages of content all at once (or as a guaranteed payment in advance).

Anyway, it all sounds fine to me, an admitted non-expert.

Sure, CSM reporters will get paid less than NYT reporters (and the talent might follow the money), but the best CSM reporters would get broader exposure for their best work each week and have the chance to land a better paying job as a result.

By: Tuesday Evening Edition 10/22/09 « Coney Media

Tuesday Evening Edition 10/22/09 « Coney Media — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:30:49 +0000

[...] NY TIMES: Considering the Old Lady’s Chicago Plan.[Media [...]

By: Newshound

Newshound — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:40:27 +0000

Angel pays property taxes – an investment arm of the Church being rented for commercial use is not excluded.

“Arms-length transaction” – maybe – totally unrelated – much better.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:29:39 +0000

Treg: Yeah, I guess. I’m really of a mixed mind about this. As long as it’s an arm’s-length transaction and the Times is paying a fair price, I suppose it’s all right. I’d rather see the non-profits do it on their own, but ultimately it’s their choice.

By: Treg

Treg — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:26:56 +0000

The more I think about it, the more it seems like it’s just outsourcing. Good for the non-profits to be able to sell some of their work and get more exposure. But some of those journalists will essentially be working for the Times, with probably lower wages and fewer benefits.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:14:50 +0000

PP: Try again. AngelRealty, of course, does have to pay property taxes. Religious organizations are not exempt from taxes when they engage in non-religious activities. Let’s rework the analogy so that Mr. Beige is receiving a $1,000 check from the government every month. What do you think now?

But, really, why do we even need an analogy? Just analyze the situation at hand.

By: Peter Porcupine

Peter Porcupine — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:11:07 +0000

DK – let me offer you a non-media analogy, and see how your gut reacts.

Mr White owns a dry-cleaning business. He does good owrk, alterations, and same day pickup.

Across the street, Mr. Beige offers all the same services, with comparative quality, but is also able to have weekly senior specials, and offer a dollar more to employees.

You see, Mr. White rents his shop from MegaRealty, a commercial business firm, and Mr. Beige rents from AngelRealty, an investment arm of a church – so Angel can offer lower rents due to having to pay no property taxes.

Who gets taken to the cleaners in the end?