Summary: I am reviewing nonprofit media sources. Explanation why below, followed by a first example review, of Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez.
In the discussion about fake news and the failure of for-profit media in first elevating Trump and then engaging in the journalism of false equivalency, we rarely talk about alternatives to the media ecosystem that we have today. That’s not surprising: the sites talking about this stuff are usually part of that very ecosystem, using postmortem analysis as another way to perpetuate their existing business model.
We’re lucky to have a diverse media landscape that includes for-profit and non-profit media from the entire political spectrum. But I believe we should consider the distorting effect the profit motive has on the news carefully:
Take out the profit motive, and you’re left with the question of funding, typically allowing for models such as paid subscribers, seeking grants from foundations, having a few wealthy patrons, or directly asking readers for donations. Each model has its challenges and can introduce new forms of bias, but managing some of the above conflicts can be significantly easier with the right funding mix and a coherent set of values.
So, what’s out there? The good news is that the web already supports a rich nonprofit media ecosystem, and crowdfunded journalism through platforms like Patreon is also on the rise (I’m maintaining a Twitter list of folks who follow that model here). The bad news is that, to my knowledge, there have been few systematic efforts to evaluate the quality of this content, and help readers navigate this landscape, thereby also helping sources grow that deserve to grow.
With Trumpism as an emerging threat, there’s also the danger that websites with funny names like TruthOut or Common Dreams will get lumped in with fake news and few will know enough about them to stand up for them when they come under attack.
In that spirit, I’ve started the process of, to the best of my ability, reviewing nonprofit media sources. I’m posting one of those reviews here, and am happy to update/correct it on the basis of feedback if you think I got it wrong. You can find the whole list of reviews so far at: https://bit.ly/npo-media . If you want to be part of this project, I also appreciate help — both in terms of reviews, and suggestions for new sources to review. You can contact me at: eloquence AT gmail DOT com
So far I have reviewed: Democracy Now!, TruthOut, Mother Jones, ProPublica, Common Dreams, The Intercept.
Coming up next: CIR Online, AlterNet, NPR, PBS, Jacobin, New Internationalist, Flyover Media
In each review, I try to consider the funding mix and the current impact the source has, as well as prospects for growth. (I will also review some conservative sources, provided they are run by non-profits.)
Thanks for any and all feedback and help. And now, on to the first review: Democracy Now!.
Frequently excellent viewer-supported journalism somewhat constrained by its format
Democracy Now! is one of the best-known progressive news sources in the United States. It has been around since 1996 and is distributed online as well as through broadcast television and radio. It is identified strongly with co-founder, principal host and executive producer Amy Goodman, an investigative journalist known for courageous confrontations with powerful economic and political forces. Most recently, Amy Goodman was in the news because an arrest warrant was issued against her in connection with her reporting on the Dakota Access Pipeline. The case was quickly dismissed but helped bring further attention to the protests.
The organization running the show is a non-profit, though it does not appear to publish an Annual Report (none is listed on the website, and an email request has so far not been answered). Its revenue for 2014 was $6,674,958, so the lack of transparency about impact, strategy and spending is a bit unusual for an organization of this size. Indeed, Charity Navigator rates it at two stars for accountability and transparency, due to the lack of audited financials or information about its board of directors.
The primary content the organization produces is a Monday-to-Friday one hour broadcast (in English, with some content translated to Spanish) that typically consists of news and interviews. With a progressive lens, the show gives more attention to issues that typically only get second-tier coverage in mainstream media, such as international efforts to combat climate change, or left-wing social movement activism. This is done in a dry and muted “just the facts” tone.
The show is always smart, sometimes tedious (interview guests are hit or miss; breaks with music or monotonic monologue are not for everyone), sometimes engaging (like when it tackles challenging conversations, such as discussions about third party candidates).
An example of clever journalism, even if one disagrees with it: during the 2016 election, Democracy Now! staged a reenactment of one of the US presidential television debates, giving third party candidate Jill Stein (who was not permitted to participate) the opportunity to answer the same questions the main candidates were asked. (The libertarian candidate was also invited, but could not make it.)
The overall curation of topics is quite remarkable, and the emphasis on stories not receiving attention by major media makes Democracy Now! a good addition to any news and information mix, if the video/audio format works for you. There is textual content on the site, but much of it is transcripts or very short blurbs.
Personally, I prefer to read the news, as do young people who have grown up with the web. But the Democracy Now! broadcast reaches audiences who may not be deft navigators of the web, and therefore is an important part of the US political media landscape.
The online version of the show does offer links to different segments and transcripts so you don’t have to watch to or listen to the whole show. But of course content that is native to the web offers many other possibilities that are underutilized in a TV/radio show transported to the web – conversation and participation, interactive data and charts, cross-referencing, embedded videos, tweets and other content, and so forth. This also gives Democracy Now! a disadvantage in social media that rely on content that’s optimized for being shared.
The Verdict
Democracy Now! is a fine example of viewer-supported journalism. It is constrained by its format and perhaps to an extent by its ambition. It is a brainy daily roundup that appeals to people who already self-identify as progressive, but is unlikely to convince people who are not. Many will background the broadcast to other activities rather than intently listening for an hour (a podcast version is available).
The lack of organizational transparency is disappointing for a non-profit, though not surprising for an organization that’s clearly monomaniacally focused on its mission. In spite of those reservations, Democracy Now! deserves four stars for its tireless dedication to quality journalism and to the pursuit of major stories and topics that are neglected elsewhere. Even if you don’t identify with the (by US standards) far left political lens of the broadcast, including frequent spotlighting of third party candidates, it enriches our perspective on the world in ways other sources rarely do.
