3 ms·

As one example, the Chicago NPR affiliate, WBEZ, acquired the Chicago Sun-Times as what was widely described as a "no-cash" deal.[1] A rather more truthful des

As one example, the Chicago NPR affiliate, WBEZ, acquired the Chicago Sun-Times as what was widely described as a "no-cash" deal.[1] A rather more truthful description is that WBEZ was paid $61 million (largely through philanthropic support) to take over a long-ailing newspaper, as described by the city's other long-ailing paper, the Chicago Tribune: "Chicago Sun-Times becomes nonprofit newspaper with $61 million in backing as WBEZ merger closes" <https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/01/31/chicago-sun-times-becomes-nonprofit-newspaper-with-61-million-in-backing-as-wbez-merger-closes/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/01/31/chicago-sun-times-...> Of newspapers operating at a loss or as philanthropies, there are the Baltimore Banner,[2] The Guardian,[3] and ProPublica,[4] which all operate as non-profits, relying on a mix of advertising, subscriptions, and philanthropy. The privately-held, for-profit Washington Post is a for-profit paper that's operated at a loss for years, and this before losing ~10% of its subscribers due to recent editorial decisions.[4][5] There are numerous propaganda institutions (usually labeled as "think tanks") promulgating various ideologies or interests, with the Atlas Network being amongst the largest and most influential: <https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Network https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Network> ________________________________ Notes: 1. See for example the WSJ's coverage: "Chicago Public Media to Acquire Chicago Sun-Times, Creating a Nonprofit Local-News Powerhouse" <https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chicago-public-media-to-acquire-chicago-sun-times-creating-a-nonprofit-local-news-powerhouse-11642628866 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chicago-public-media-to-acq...> archive/paywall: <https://archive.is/LP3Q6 https://archive.is/LP3Q6>. 2. A non-profit newspaper established in 2022: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner>. 3. A slightly dated take on 2016 turmoil at The Guardian: "Everything you need to know about the Guardian’s giant bust-up" (2026-5-18) <https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/fueding-and-financial-meltdown-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-guardian-s-giant-bustup-a3249961.html https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/fueding-and...> and Wikipedia's entry on the Scott Trust Limited which underwrites the paper: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited>. 4. ProPublica was established as a 501(c)(3) in 2007, with funding from the Sandler, Knight, MacArthur, and Ford foundations, along with the Pew Charitable Trusts, Carnegie Corporation, and Atlantic Philanthropies: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica>. 5. "The Washington Post publisher disclosed the paper lost $77 million last year. Here’s his plan to turn it around" (2024-5-23) <https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/media/washington-post-will-lewis-turnaround-plan/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/media/washington-post-will-le...> 6. "Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers" (2024-10-29) <https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-post-subscriber-cancellations https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...>

bradleyjg 2y ago
That’s just a different set of customers (“patrons”).
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  No. For most of the listed orgs, it's a different business organisation (not-for-profit rather than shareholder-based), the organisations aren't intended to run an operating profit, and the content is available to far more than just those who pay directly for access. Mind that in the case of ad-supported print media, the principle customers (the advertisers) weren't identical with the set of readers. But access was largely limited to those who subscribed directly, bought a newsstand copy, or could access a copy obtained by either method. In either case the operation was generally intended to run a profit. There have also been free papers, either supported entirely by advertising (frequently "entertainment weeklies"), or published as propaganda organs for a given organisation, frequently religious or political.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Late add for clarity, on last 'graph: Free papers might be either for-profit (ad-supported) or not-for-profit (propaganda). Ultimately there's a rather blurry line between advertising and propaganda: both are messaging modes in which the publisher is more interested in distribution than the reader.

bradleyjg 2y ago

That’s just a different set of customers (“patrons”).

dredmorbius 2y ago
No. For most of the listed orgs, it's a different business organisation (not-for-profit rather than shareholder-based), the organisations aren't intended to run an operating profit, and the content is available to far more than just those who pay directly for access. Mind that in the case of ad-supported print media, the principle customers (the advertisers) weren't identical with the set of readers. But access was largely limited to those who subscribed directly, bought a newsstand copy, or could access a copy obtained by either method. In either case the operation was generally intended to run a profit. There have also been free papers, either supported entirely by advertising (frequently "entertainment weeklies"), or published as propaganda organs for a given organisation, frequently religious or political.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Late add for clarity, on last 'graph: Free papers might be either for-profit (ad-supported) or not-for-profit (propaganda). Ultimately there's a rather blurry line between advertising and propaganda: both are messaging modes in which the publisher is more interested in distribution than the reader.