The right wing learned long ago the importance of using paid professionals in their organizing. For example, Thurston County’s implementation of the Growth Management Act has been heavily influenced by the likes of the Master Builders.
In contrast, local progressive-greens have largely resisted paying people. That somehow tarnishes the egalitarian purity of the crusade, I presume. In addition, enviro and social-justice groups have tended to be so dominated by policy wonks that few have developed their fundraising capacity as well as nonprofit social services.
The result: Years go by without achieving more than incremental change. And as the lack of major progress becomes more and more pronounced, old-timers can develop a paralyzing cynicism. One way this plays out is that we may feel conflicted about supporting the latest pie-eyed crusade that is likely to fail — invariably due to insufficient skills and experience.
When does this vicious cycle stop? When do we learn that you probably can’t accomplish big initiatives — like a charter or public power — without the help of paid professionals? Probably never, but for posterity I’ll ask a follow-up question: If you want to up your game, do you focus on investing in groups or individuals?
Enter, Tom Hyde’s idea of a nonprofit media foundation
In a comment in the last post, Tom offered what I think is one of the most promising ideas I’ve heard in a long time — a foundation that invests in independent media projects. What’s particularly inventive about this approach is that, as Tom notes, such a foundation would tend to sidestep the need to develop a business model for a specific media outlet and instead focus on the actual creation of quality journalism. The resulting products could be spun off in any number of different venues.
While such a foundation could invest in specific initiatives of local media outlets, its biggest practical effect could be to help independent journalists earn a living. The long-term impacts of that could be huge.
I don’t know whether Thurston County is big enough to support a foundation that focused narrowly on media. Could you find enough board members with sufficient fundraising skills to get it off the ground? Or might it be better to either:
- Scale up to a regional or statewide media foundation, or
- Expand the purview of the local foundation so it covered other activities besides media?
Scaling up has more appeal to me because a media-focused foundation would presumably be a bigger champion of journalistic independence. All too often progressive-green activists seem to see media as little more than a propaganda tool rather than an independent check and balance against everyone’s excesses — including theirs.
The other appeal of a regional or statewide media foundation is that the greater-Seattle area has a far deeper pool of people with expertise in nonprofit development. I’m not at all surprised that Climate Solutions, which for years had arguably been the most financially successful Olympia environmental group, gradually became more Seattle focused in its governance.
That said, the Olympia area is going to need to diversify its economy as state government contracts — both due to bipartisan budget cuts for this biennium and the potential election of a Republican governor who has made downsizing a major priority. Might there be a few laid-off state workers with nonprofit organizing skills who could take Tom’s foundation idea and run with it?
Toward an alternative local economic development strategy
Indeed, why give the local Economic Develop Council and the chambers of commerce a monopoly on economic development policy? Why not establish as a community goal the idea that the Olympia area should become a hub of nonprofit management expertise that is shared with the rest of the state? Launching this foundation could fit within that goal.
This is not a small idea. It would take years of dedicated effort on the part of many people. It could also fail at any stage. Perhaps most importantly, this idea would require many local civic elites — and independent journalists — to rethink their social change model. That may very well be the biggest roadblock of all.
Tom Hyde
January 20, 2012
I wonder, do people still value journalism, or has it been so debased and broadly tarnished as to render “media” an all-inclusive expletive with no exceptions?
olympiaviews
January 21, 2012
Tom, for me the question is how many people still value journalism — or can be cultivated into doing so.
That said, journalism may have a “branding” problem kind of like the Republicans after the disastrous 2008 election. Their marketeers responded by creating the Tea Party. In retrospect it was a brilliant move in both “reforming” the Republican party while rebranding it with key elements of the party’s base, which had grown disaffected with the G. W. Bush era’s ham-handed focus on crony capitalism.
The kind of journalism I want to work on has enough distinguishing characteristics that it deserves a somewhat separate branding. Call that presumptuous, but it seems to me that we’ve got to reinvent how we think about the aims and means of journalism. And we need to be clear with those we serve as to what we’re doing and why.
For example, I’d argue that one of mainstream journalism’s biggest failings is a relentlessly short-term focus. That’s a big reason why longer-term problems like global warming don’t 1) get much attention and 2) the right kinds of attention.
The thing about articulating a new product or service is that it will take time for people to wrap their brains around it and decide whether it is useful to them. Aside from a handful of intellectuals, most folks have a “show me” attitude. Don’t just describe your principles but show me what you intend to offer.
That’s hard to do when you’re still in an experimental stage and have only a fuzzy sense of where you’re going. One reason why I created this blog and have tried to keep it low key is to allow enough room to play around with stuff. This blog isn’t really a model for anything; it’s more like a sketch pad that has an iterative quality. Not sure how useful it is.
Deane
January 22, 2012
Great points…
Too often the “integrity” of the more liberal-minded change-makers gets in their own way when it comes to effective implementation of their ideas. And the notion of paying exorbitant rates to “professionals” is beyond the pale because most “activists” won’t even let money flow enough to pay themselves for their hard work, let alone an outside agent.
I’ve seen so many meaningful campaigns wither and die because the leaders have an absurd and incapable relationship with money. So let’s talk about the future of journalism in Olympia instead…
Key to success is understanding how hyperlocal Web media works… The long form of writing in a single article/post is a thing of the past… But brief ideas with photos and videos that combine into a series of posts is not only less time consuming to produce it takes only a minute or two to digest, which means more people read the whole thing! No one has time for the long form anymore, especially the younger generation!
Hyperlocal media can thrive if you combine it with selling affordable ads to local business. But you need way more web traffic and a minimum of a half-dozens posts a day to generate enough ad revenue to build a top knotch staff. If it succeeds though it could be something much more meaningful and community-oriented than the Olympian or OlyBlog has ever been!
I’d love to talk more with you about how to build this, especially if I could be a part of it, maybe even make a career of it!