Re: {JTM} Digest for jtmlist@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

[Jeffersonville Hydroelectric]

Hi Josh -
How about something like this:

· If Project is a formal, professional, public-interest journalism program, it must maintain a firewall between content decisions and any advertising, sponsorship or underwriting from businesses or institutions that it would reasonably be expected to report on as a public-interest news source; nor can Project devote significant resources to producing coverage that is redundant of that which is produced by most commercial news media.

My reasoning (some overlap to Michelle's):
1) Similar to Michelle, I like the the term firewall and it has been used in public broadcasting for many years, so that should fly.
2) In sentence two, I think as fiscal sponsor, what you want is coverage that is not now being provided OR coverage that is smarter, deeper, more investigative than what traditional or commercial media might be providing.

Best of luck with it!
And thanks for your help on fiscal sponsorship advice many months ago. After that, we became the fiscal sponsor for a project that fits the above described bill almost exactly.

Barbara Gref
Community Reporting Alliance
(at my jeffhydro account)

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:13 AM, <jtm...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist/topics

• Question re: Fiscal sponsorship limitations for journalists [1 Update]

 Question re: Fiscal sponsorship limitations for journalists

Michelle Ferrier <mfer...@elon.edu> Jan 25 09:50PM  

Hi Josh,
I find the statement you use problematic in a couple of ways. One, sponsorship is a way for nonprofit entities to wean themselves from foundation support. Nonprofit doesn't mean not making money. Many institutions have been able to provide firewalls between their editorial functions and their financial supporters. A statement that clearly asks for there to be division of labor would suffice to ensure editorial isn't tainted (in an ideal world of course.)
 
The second phrase about devoting significant resources to producing coverage that might be regularly produced by most commercial news media, seems problematic as well. Many hyperlocals jump into spaces previously occupied by commercial media, either because they are neglecting certain communities or populations or topics within their coverage area. The qualifier, "daily or near-daily" might help, but it seems that this would be well nigh impossible to monitor or distinguish for a hyperlocal operating within a market already served by a commercial media interest. Or for a topical site that covers an area largely ignored by mainstream media.
 
So by my interpretation, you've stifled the ability to make money and to create content for just the types of projects that would most need fiscal sponsorship.
 
Have you asked the Online Media Legal Network to help you with a statement? http://www.omln.org/
 
Hope this helps!
Michelle Ferrier, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Elon University School of Communications
Founder and Publisher, LocallyGrownNews.com
________________________________
From: jtm...@googlegroups.com [jtm...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Josh Wilson [mr.joshu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:06 PM
To: jtm...@googlegroups.com
Subject: {JTM} Question re: Fiscal sponsorship limitations for journalists
 
Hello folks. I'm looking for some feedback on creating a policy around fiscal sponsorship for journalism.
 
Independent Arts & Media is a nonprofit fiscal sponsor with a special focus on media and journalism projects. We were the bridge for the SF Public Press while they awaited the final IRS ruling on their tax status, and we also sponsor a variety of magazines, websites, etc.
 
Given the IRS's reluctance to approve new journalism nonprofits (perhaps in part due to the fact that journalism has largely been a commercial endeavor in the U.S.) we are being proactive by taking extra steps to ensure that the programs we sponsor are doing definitively noncommercial work — work that could not survive or thrive in the commercial sector.
 
To this end, we include the following text in our sponsorship policy manual:
 
· If Project is a formal, professional, public-interest journalism program, it cannot run advertising, sponsorship or underwriting from businesses or institutions that it would reasonably be expected to report on as a public-interest news source; nor can Project devote significant resources to producing coverage that might be regularly (daily or near-daily) produced by most commercial news media.
 
Again, this was put in the manual to make sure that the journalism projects we sponsor are definitively noncommercial in nature.
 
What I didn't expect was that this policy might be interpreted as a form of censorship.
 
In fact, one applicant to our sponsorship program withdrew their proposal because of that policy — not because they weren't doing public-interest work, but because of the potential for censorship that it invokes.
 
On the one hand, we do want a "filtration system" and only provide support to appropriate projects.
 
On the other hand, we do not want to be associated with a censorship policy. The point of our fiscal sponsorship program is to empower public-interest producers, after all.
 
I welcome any feedback and reactions to the foregoing
 
Thanks!
 
Josh / www.artsandmedia.net<http://www.artsandmedia.net>
 
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en
WEBSITE: http://www.journalismthatmatters.org


 

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group jtmlist.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Journalism That Matters" group.
To post to this group, send email to jtm...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
jtmlist+u...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jtmlist?hl=en
WEBSITE: http://www.journalismthatmatters.org
 
 
 

--
Jeffersonville Hydroelectric Co.
Kevin and Barbara Gref
4759 State Route 52
Jeffersonville, NY 12748
845-482-3458

[Michelle Ferrier]

I LIKE Barbara's edits. Says what one needs to do and clearly. That's why I love this group!
Michelle

---

From: jtm...@googlegroups.com [jtm...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Jeffersonville Hydroelectric [jeff...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2013 3:06 PM
To: jtm...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {JTM} Digest for jtm...@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

[Josh Wilson]

Hi everyone! Barbara, Michelle ... thanks. I really appreciate the insight. A couple things come to mind.

One is that I realized we don't need that specific a policy at all. It's already built into our organization's mission and charitable purpose to specifically support NONCOMMERCIAL works in media (and the arts and culture); adding that extra text creates a needless set of hypotheticals, the sole purpose of which is to appease (or impress) the IRS before it even makes an issue of anything. Since what the IRS would measure (should it ever come to that) is our actions based on the charitable purpose they have listed in our original 501(c)(3) application, a paragraph of added rhetorical flourishes is quite pointless.

We have clearly stated goals around noncommercial work, community service, etc., and regular reporting requirements and the option to terminate sponsorship if things aren't going appropriately, as well. So everything we need is already built into the system we designed without the added policy, which in the end really does seem like a gesture more than anything else.

A few other quick comments:

• What would a "firewall" policy actually look like, in practical terms that can be put to use by a given news nonprofit?

• Michelle: I wouldn't call it "stifling" work in need of sponsorship, but rather being picky about what kind of orchids we grow in our greenhouse. Our charitable purpose is specifically focused on supporting NONCOMMERCIAL works in the public interest. There are other places folks can go if they want to start an ad network for local media, etc.; that's not our beat.

• It's important to remember that fiscal sponsorship's sole justification before the IRS is to advance the charitable purpose of the sponsoring nonprofit. That's the point of it and what keeps it legal. Within that context, one can do all sorts of things — wean a project of foundation dependency and develop an individual-donor base; bridge the gap while one waits for one's independent 501(c)(3) status; or use the sponsor in perpetuity so as to concentrate resources on programming and basically outsource the admin.

Anyway, thank you all for the thought-provoking conversation. You helped me come to a conclusion that I now realize I was avoiding -- that we have everything we need already, and that stapling on an extra policy about noncommercial journalism is redundant and confusing.

Josh

p.s. Here are our sponsorship details, if you want to check 'em out: http://artsandmedia.net/fiscal-sponsorship