This is a response to a paper presented by Harry Browne, Dublin Institute of Technology, at the Cardiff Future of Journalism seminar in 2009.

Harry Browne makes a compelling case when he calls for a more critical view of journalism funded by foundations and done for the “public good”: Indeed, concerns about control and bias have been nearly absent from the debate. Instead, it has focused primarily on the advantages of foundation funding and worries over whether foundation funding could ensure strong competition to commercial main stream media.

I do not disagree with Browne that there is cause for concern about bias regarding foundation funded journalism. It should be obvious enough that if a foundation can at any time and for any reason withdraw its funds from a news organization, this could ultimately result in the journalists refraining from reporting stories that would “offend” their funders. This is true especially if the news organization had only one donor foundation.

However, Browne barely touches upon the fact that concerns of control and bias are hardly unique to foundation funded journalism. Among the problems that foundation-funded media are  “potentially adding … of its own” he includes “encouraging journalists to anticipate and chase after the idiosyncratic whims of funders …; running up against the often-delicate relationships between their funders and the state bodies the journalists should be investigating…” It is, he writes, “highly questionable” that foundation funded media can contribute to social change in society, because foundations are themselves “an important component of the establishment and maintenance of existing structures of elite control”.

Ironically, the exact same mechanisms Browne describes operate in commercial media today – at least in the United States. In their propaganda model[1] Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky propose ownership as one of the reasons why commercial mainstream media largely function as de-facto propagandists. The twenty-four largest media companies in the United States, they write, are all “owned and controlled by quite wealthy people”.[2] Furthermore, most media depend heavily on advertising – Herman and Chomsky call it “the advertising license”.[3] Most of the advertisers are important components of the establishment  – as are the wealthy owners of the media companies – not to mention the actual media companies themselves. Browne’s concerns about elitism and support for the existing structures in society could therefore be raised at commercial media, as well.

In fact, the three examples that he draws on to indicate that there is a control and bias problem in foundation funded journalism would be just as easily – if not better – explained by Herman and Chomsky’s propaganda model.

According to Browne, for example, non-profit ProPublica’s investigation into the government-funded Arabic TV-station Al-Hurra “hews unerringly to the American mainstream view that criticism of Israel is inherently wrong.” But he fails to prove how this bias is caused by the fact that ProPublica is funded by a foundation. It could in fact be caused by a number of other extraneous variables: The sole fact that ProPublica in this instance hews to a mainstream view points to a larger, systemic picture that involves having cultural blind spots and the difficulty of escaping stereotyping[4] – a common failing, not just within the media, but among all human beings. Another possible cause might be in being part of a media system “so powerful as to be internalized largely without awareness”[5]. Herman and Chomsky in fact provide examples similar to the Al-Hurra investigation, for instance the commercial media’s lack of criticism of the El Salvador or Guatemala elections in the 1980’s because these the U.S. government considered theses states “friends”[6].

The main funders of ProPublica, Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, are widely known to be big donors to liberal causes and Democratic candidates[7] – among them Barack Obama. Still, ProPublica has actually reported investigative and potentially harmful stories on Democratic candidates and the government. Examples include tracking the stimulus money[8], the bailout[9] and an investigation with ABC News into both Republican and Democratic representatives’ use of their Political Action Committee funds[10]. A comprehensive content analysis would be needed to prove that ProPublica does not present biased investigation. But it is in my opinion a serious flaw to dismiss these examples as a minor exceptions to a rule of biased journalism, as when Browne writes “notwithstanding its particularly clear and comprehensive coverage of financial issues and the US government’s stimulus package”.

Browne’s second example of foundation funded media’s problems with bias and control can also be explained by other – and more obvious – factors. He describes how the foundation Atlantic Philanthropies stripped the Irish non-profit, Centre for Public Inquiry, of funding because its director was subjected to heavy criticism and allegations of having ties to the Colombian FARC. The criticism of the CPI director was made by the Irish Minister for Justice and the newspaper Irish Independent. Browne concludes that Atlantic Philanthropies fled from its funding “because of sensitivity about the relationship between its director and the government – or, by the best interpretation, because it came to negative conclusions about that director’s character and behavior without due process”.

An alternative explanation of what happened to CPI director Connolly was that he was subjected to flak as Herman and Chomsky call negative responses to reporting[11]. This is not something that only happens to foundation-funded media.  As explained by Herman and Chomsky[12], in commercial media, flak might result in advertisers withdrawing their patronage. The main reason why the flak produced against CPI was so devastating  – to the extent that it put CPI out of business – was not the fact that CPI was funded by a foundation, but the fact that it was funded by and therefore dependent on just one foundation. The same disaster could have happened to a commercial media company dependent on one big advertiser pulling ad dollars.

Browne submits that Atlantic stopped funding CPI because the foundation had an invested interest in keeping a good relationship with the Irish government. This would be what he describes as “running up against the often-delicate relationships between their funders and the state bodies the journalists should be investigating”.

Foundations are not the only organizations to have delicate relationships with their governments, however. An advertiser might also not want to be associated with a certain media company criticizing the government as happened with Murrow numerous times with See It Now sponsors. Furthermore, most large commercial media companies themselves have delicate relationships with their government, as described by Bagdikian[13]. They have huge stakes in regulations regarding antitrust laws and media content such as the Fairness Doctrine etc. Bagdikian describes a particularly grave case: In 1969, Richard E. Berlin, president and CEO of Hearst, lobbied President Richard Nixon to adopt the Newspaper Preservation Act. A study later showed that, during the 1972 election,  papers benefitting from this legislation had a much higher tendency to suppress the Watergate scandal[14]. Journalists ran up against the delicate relationship between their own organization and the government.

Browne’s last example regards George Soros’ Open Society Institute setting up the non-profit Transitions Online for the stated purpose of influencing the intellectual direction of the countries in Eastern Europe. In other words, he describes Soros’ intent as propagating a capitalist, democratic point of view that would benefit his other business activities. Is it really any different from Rupert Murdoch creating Fox News with a conservative agenda for the sake of profit? The difference seems to be that Soros have been relatively open about the purpose of his funding, while Murdoch’s media company still insists that it is “fair and balanced”.

Undoubtedly, foundation-funded media are confronted with the problem that, to receive funds, they have to convince potential funders that they share their values, even if these values are reliable reporting or even finding the truth. But advertisers too, make sure that the content in the news fits their world view, by insisting on programming that does not interfere with their own message. In a subtle way, this leads to commercial media neglect of important subjects such as homelessness, the growing gap between rich and poor, and corporate greed – because they don’t attract the audience that advertisers like or create a “consuming mood”(my expression)[15].

My claim is that elite control, bias and the inability to question existing structures within society are not unique features of foundation-funded media. They are not even unique to the media. Researchers and scientists face the exact same problems and concerns when they need funding as Browne rightly notes.

Scientists and journalists alike have a problem: Their product does not immediately sell. Of course it would be ideal if a media company could survive on viewers’ or readers’ subscription alone. That would assure that the journalists’ loyalty would be with their public – as it should be[16]. But the truth is that hardly any news organization today can survive on its readers or viewers alone. It has to “sell” its audience to advertisers or foundations, while risking its journalistic independence in the process.

This is especially true for the most vulnerable journalistic discipline, investigative journalism. It is a particularly vulnerable because it requires a lot of time and money and is not as sell-able as Hollywood gossip or sports results. In 1922, Walter Lippmann wrote: “We suppose an appetite for uninterested truths which is not discovered by any honest analysis of our own tastes.”[17] That is no less true today.

While foundation funded media suffers some of the same flaws as commercial media, it also remedies others. Browne mentions some himself: It potentially gives journalists more time to work on a story, freeing them to pursue different sources from the ones that fit into commercial media’s tight schedule[18]. It relieves them of profit orientation and reliance on advertisers. Journalists can work on stories that are important instead of popular.

Actually, the sole fact that there are now several ways to fund journalism could prove to be an advantage in itself. If commercial media and foundation-funded media start questioning each other’s funding and perceived bias, that’s a discussion that is largely missing from a system where the media companies “share too many of the same methods and goals”.[19]

But the point here is not a fight over which media structure can do the best or most objective journalism. To focus on that, I would find unfortunate. By targeting only foundation-funded media in his criticism, Browne suggests that the issue at hand pertains to funding – a simple discussion of whether it is better to have commercial or nonprofit media. But as in fact commercial media can be subjected to the same criticism as nonprofits, I suggest that the debate should center on a different issue. Instead of looking at from whom media companies receive money, we should be looking at how they receive money and how it affects them.

Some of the issues that should be discussed in all media companies – non-profit and commercial alike – are: How do we ensure our journalistic integrity? How do we ensure that we don’t rely too heavily on specific donors or advertisers? Do we turn some of them down? Do we court others? Do we train our staff to be better at recognizing personal or cultural bias? Do we disclose to the public who our funders/advertisers are and how big their contributions are as a way of helping the public keep us honest? Do we set up a board of journalists to counter balance the board of directors and navigate conflicts of interest[20]? How much profit do we need to make before the money is put towards doing more journalism instead of raising profits even more? Do we keep a certain reserve of money so we know we can afford to lose an advertiser or donor? Do we lobby for laws that would allow us to sue a company for damages if it tries to gain editorial input? Do we lobby for antitrust laws or the Fairness Doctrine? Do we lobby at all?

So far there has been an assumption that the more money could be raised for a certain media company – via advertising, foundations or otherwise – the better. The idea has been that more money means more resources to do good journalism. There has been way too little emphasis on the fact that money could come at the price of losing editorial independence or objectivity.

There has also been the assumption that “church and state” – meaning the journalism and accounting departments of a media organization – should be kept strictly separated. But all this has done has been to open the door to money subtly influencing journalists’ work without the journalists having any influence on the money received. A one-way-street of influence so to speak. In reality, journalists should be treating their funders the same way they treat their sources: Constantly asking what they have something to gain from what they do and how they want to influence the journalists.

There will always be companies that will focus primarily on getting more and more funds, thinking that more is better. In recent years we have seen the lines being blurred between what is objective and what is downright propaganda. Is Fox News, for example, a “fair and balanced” news network or the “researching arm of the Republican Party”? Is MSNBC objective or constantly championing leftwing causes? Are organizations such as Americans for Prosperity, Center for American Progress or the Ayn Rand Institute havens of objective experts or propagandists?

At the very least, any media company who wishes to do objective journalism and wants to be conceived as such, should consider the questions asked above and disclose as much financial information as possible. That way, at least the public will have some basis for knowing who to trust.

Bibliography

Books:

Bagdikian, Ben: The New Media Monopoly. Beacon Press, Boston, 2004

Herman, Edward and Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing consent. Pantheon Books, New York, 2002

Kovach, Bill and Tom Rosenstiel: The Elements of Journalism. Three Rivers Press, New York, 2007

Lippmann, Walter: Public Opinion. Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1922.

Articles:

Foer, Franklin; Tom Freedman and Elizabeth Wilner: “How a Philanthropic Network Can Save Journalism”. Chronicle of Philanthropy 2/26/2009, Vol. 21 Issue 9, p31-31, 1p.

Perry, Suzanne: “Nonprofit News Hounds”. Chronicle of Philanthropy 11/1/2007, Vol.20 issue 2, p2-2,1p

Perry, Suzanne: “Financier Backs Project to Beef Up Investigative Reporting”. Chronicle of Philanthropy 11/1/2007, Vol. 20 Issue 2, p3-3, 1p

Web articles:

Barnett, Jim: “Nonprofits with a perspective hiring journalists: A sign of things to come?” Nieman Journalism Lab, Sep. 10th 2009. Available at http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/09/nonprofits-with-a-perspective-hiring-journalists-a-sign-of-things-to-come/. Accessed on 9/20/2009

Feldman, Bob: “Report from the Field: Left Media and Left Think Tanks – Foundation-managed Protest?” Critical Sociology 33: 427-446. Available at http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/33/3/427.

Guensburg, Carol: “Nonprofit News”. American Journalism Review, February/March 2008. Available at http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4458. Accessed on 9/20/2009

Miner, Michael: “Is Pro Publica living up to its promise?” Chicago Reader, Blog post 8 July 2008. Available at http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/07/07/pro-publica-living-its-promise. Accessed on 9/20/2009

Westphal, David: “Foundations Invest in Watchdog Reporting as Group Considers National Investigative Network”, Poynter Online. Available at http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=131&aid=165890. Accessed on 9/16/2009

Westphal, David: “Philanthropic Foundations: Growing Funders of the News”. USC Annenberg School for Communication Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, July 2009. Available at http://communicationleadershipblog.uscannenberg.org/Westphal-Philanthropic%20Support%20for%20News%20report.pdf. Accessed on 9/16/2009.

[2] Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. 5

[3] Herman &Chomsky, 2002, pp. 14-18

[4] Lippmann, 1922, pp. 79-158

[5] Herman & Chomsky p. 302

[6] Herman & Chomsky p. 87-142

[7] Perry: “Financier Backs Project to Beef Up Investigative Reporting”, 2007.

[8] http://www.propublica.org/ion/stimulus – accessed 10/21/2009

[9] http://bailout.propublica.org/ – accessed 10/21/09

[10] http://www.propublica.org/feature/leadership-pacs-let-the-good-times-roll-925 – accessed 10/21/2009

[11] Herman & Chomsky, 2002, pp. 26-28

[12] Herman & Chomsky, 2002, p. 26

[13] Bagdikian, 2004, pp. 204-217

[14] Bagdikian, 2004, p. 215

[15] Bagdikian, 2004, pp. 91-113

[16] Kovach & Rosenstiel, 2007, pp. 51-77

[17] Lippmann, 1922, p. 362

[18] Herman & Chomsky, 2002, pp. 18-25

[19] Bagdikian, 2004, p. 7

[20] Example from ProPublica