Journalism is Waning...

I also came across an opinion piece earlier today that discussed how journalism is declining because people do not value true journalistic reporting today as much as they did in the past. The writer, Michael Gerson, argues that people do not want real news, so therefore cable networks and many bloggers give people watered down versions of the news. As Gerson puts it, "Makeup is cheaper for guests than actual reporting."

He also raises an important issue that I feel is worth noting. While independent media is definitely on the rise and is a fantastic and necessary counterpart to mainstream journalism, it does, for the most part, lack something the mainstream press has: Money. While an indy news outlet can bring down government officials and expose wrongdoing here in the U.S., most do not have the finances to send a reporter into a war zone or overseas to cover a crisis. While there's much to be said about the quality of mainstream reporting from a war zone, the fact still remains, in my opinion, that any reporting is better than no reporting at all. An independent blogger with his or her own Web site probably doesn't have the money to cover a story like those, so for that reason mainstream reporters still have a necessary place in the world, despite the turn towards Internet journalism.

The Nation: How to Save Journalism

Earlier this week, an article appeared in "The Nation" titled "How to Save Journalism." In the story, the writers discuss an upcoming Federal Trade Commission hearing to address the downsizing of newsrooms nationwide and brainstorm policy measures that could end this decline. The entire article paints a dreary picture of the state of journalism - unjustly so, in my opinion.

It is obviously true that newsrooms at local newspapers and television stations have been forced to cut back in recent years. The FTC places much of the blame for these cuts on the rise of the Internet, an idea the writers of this article correctly dispel. While the Internet certainly hasn't helped most local newspapers to thrive, most of the problems they are facing began well before the Internet told hold on people.

The writers also discuss how government policies need to be enacted in order to "save" journalism. Here is where I disagree with the writers. They argue that journalism should act as the fourth estate and watch over the government. Therefore, they reason, the government should implement policies to help this estate keep watch over the other branches of government. In my opinion, however, it is not the government's responsibility to "save" journalism. It is the responsibility of journalists to adapt to our changing world and ensure that journalism never dies. Additionally, if a government agency stepped in to save, for instance, a local paper, would that local paper print highly unfavorable information afterwards? Probably not, which destroys the purpose of journalism - to keep government in check.

I also had one other final question: Who says journalism is dying? Sure, traditional print media may be declining, but online, independent journalism is thriving. The world needs journalism and it will never die out; it will evolve and change, which is what independent journalism has done when compared against the traditional media.

High-Speed Internet Needed Nationwide

Americans living in many rural areas nationwide may not be able to read this blog very easily. For many communities, they simply do not have access to a high-speed connection. For others with low incomes, they cannot afford the steep costs of a fast connection.

In fact, this New York Times article reports that 33 percent of Americans with access to a broadband connection elect not to subscribe. Finances are definitely a reason, which warrants further federal investigation as to how costs could be reduced without driving ISPs out of business. According to the article, age is another factor as just 30 percent of Americans 65 or older use broadband Internet.

Still, despite many people electing not to use their service, there is still 4 percent of Americans who do not have any access to high-speed Internet in their homes. For me, this is incredibly troubling. In today's world, access to information on this information is vital. There are many topics that mainstream news sources will not dare to cover, which is one reason that independent media on the Internet is so important. Without access to this vital information, one cannot be as informed.

Many countries, like Finland, have made access to high-speed Internet a legal right of all of its citizens. In October, Finland declared that starting next July every citizen will be guaranteed access to a one-megabit broadband connection. By the end of 2015, each citizen will be able to access a 100-megabit connection.

Americans need access to high-speed Internet. As reported here, a task force report released Friday in Minnesota is making universal broadband access a goal for that state. Minnesota is currently 24th in broadband access, but hopes to jump into the top five. The report examined the existing WiFi coverage and the state's rural areas, and made recommendations on how to achieve greater coverage by 2015. Let's hope that the federal government can come up with a similar plan of action soon and implement it to make universal broadband access a reality for the United States.

For more information on this issue, check out this blog post or InternetForEveryone.org.

Transparency is the New Objectivity

According to this article (and many others) transparency is the new objectivity on the Internet. Whereas newspaper reporters aspired to present both sides of a story in as unbiased a manner as possible, those who blog or report on the Internet should aspire to provide links and state their biases upfront, according to this writer. In fact, the writer even goes so far as to say, "Objectivity is discredited these days as anything but an aspiration, and even that aspiration is looking pretty sketchy."

While I agree that it seems impossible for writers to be truly objective, that doesn't mean we shouldn't still aspire to that standard. The Internet makes it very easy to link to sources one interviewed, provide links to Web sites that offer further information and state one's biases upfront. In fact, Web articles that do not include links to sources seem fabricated or slanted incredibly to one side.

Still, this doesn't mean that the standard of objectivity should be eliminated. I think writers should still try to present both sides of a story, even as their biases put them personally in favor of one side over another. One should state their biases at the top of the stories, but still make every effort to include sources that go against their personal views.

Lend Me Your Ear Buds

This November 2007 article from the L.A. Times reported on the first full-length feature film to be released exclusively to iTunes and the Web. "Purple Violets," by Edward Burns was the film, which could be downloaded for $14.99 and played on your iPod, computer screen or television. Obviously, there were some benefits to this online-only release. The main benefit, of course, was the wide range of people who had immediate access to the film. Burns' previous films were premiered to limited audiences in New York and Los Angeles, but this film was premiered to the entire world simultaneously on the Internet. Furthermore, by allowing these people to download the film to their iPods, they could take it anywhere and spread the film to others easier than it could be spread on movie screens. However, I still feel there is something to be said for the timeless experience of seeing a fantastic movie on the big screen. Even watching a DVD in your own home doesn't compare to the experience you receive with the surround sound and giant wide screen at the multiplex. While online releases certainly aren't going away, I also trust that releases to movie theaters also won't end either.

J-Students: What Kind Of Job Do You Want?

I was emailed this article recently so I thought I'd pass it along. The story from 2006 quotes a 2004 study that found that most journalism students in colleges and universities across the U.S. sought jobs in print media than in online journalism. (20.6 percent for TV news and 19.5 percent for newspapers versus 6.5 percent for Internet positions.) These figures were in spite of the fact that starting salaries at online-based jobs were substantially higher than comparable positions at traditional media outlets.

I wonder if the numbers would be similar today or if more students are embracing the possibility of an online position. I mean, after all, our generation does consume online news far more than we are reading traditional newspapers or magazines. Personally, I came into college convinced that I was going to work in print media. My dream job is still to become an editor at a top men's magazine or entertainment magazine. However, I could definitely see myself working for an online news source. In today's world, journalism students have to be open to the possibility of working on the Web because jobs in print or broadcast media are shrinking everyday. It would be interesting to see updated statistics on the types of jobs journalism students seek immediately following graduation. (My quick Google search elicited no helpful results, but maybe you're a more savvy searcher than I am.)

The article also touches on another important issue: journalism education's slowness to embrace online media. If students aren't being taught how to report for the Web or develop a Web presence for themselves, how can they be expected to feel comfortable searching for Internet jobs? At my school, Ithaca College, I've definitely received some great instruction in Internet journalism, but broadcast and especially print media are still very much the emphasized mediums. Journalism programs must incorporate online news into their curriculums so that their students can embrace the possibility of someday working for online media.

Arianna Huffington Comes to Ithaca!

Tonight, Arianna Huffington spoke in Emerson Suites at Ithaca College. The co-founder of the Huffington Post gave her thoughts on the state of journalism and new media. One of the first points she made about the strengths of independent media is its tendency to present more than just the fact. Whereas many newspapers adhere to a strict inverted pyramid style, indy media sites aren't afraid to present news in other ways, such as with satire, video or dramatic flair.

She also applauded our continuously developing linked economy. She called it a "cause for celebration." Consumers of traditional media are passive, often picking up a newspaper and merely glancing at headlines or simply filling time. Independent media users, however, are active participants who follow links, investigate topics further, donate to causes, organize themselves around a political candidate or movement, or even donate to the reporting itself. "You consume new media galloping on a horse," she said.

Huffington also shared her thoughts on the decline of the print media. It was very refreshing to hear her shift the discussion from the future of newspapers to the future of journalism itself. While newspapers may be declining, what's more troubling for me as an aspiring journalist has been the subsequent decline of things like investigative reporting. Furthermore, as Huffington said, print media can never die out. Magazines, for instances, are popular with people heading to the beach, on a flight, or looking for a specific topic.

I think Huffington's strongest point came when she said the discussion is not about new versus old media, but instead about today's media versus yesterday's media. Regardless of their primary form of publication, all forms of media need an online footprint. Newspapers, magazines and broadcast stations all need to have a strong web presence that offers something their print or broadcast product cannot.

For more on Arianna Huffington, I recommend reading some of her blog posts on HuffPost. Her speech was great and I'm definitely glad I got to hear her speak here on campus.

Huffington Likes Our Obsessiveness

First of all, HAPPY HALLOWEEN! I hope you had a great Halloween.

Tomorrow, Arianna Huffington will speak at Ithaca College. In preparation for her talk, I read this article in which Huffington discusses some of the issues facing independent media and journalism as a whole, as well as some of the strengths of indy media. The thing I found most interesting was her assessment of how the obsessiveness of Internet users has strengthened coverage of some of the most important topics. Crowd-sourcing has become a highly successful way of reporting a story. Huffington used it to find information on lobbyists in the U.S.; other sites have used it for such things as the positions of super-delegates in the last election. Before the Internet, this method of reporting was never possible. Obviously, it has its own share of drawbacks, not the least of which is the possible issue of inaccuracy -- after all, everyday citizens aren't trained in grammar and fact-finding like journalism students and mainstream reporters are. Still, the method has its strengths.

I think Huffington said it best: "Mainstream media suffer from attention deficit disorder. New media suffer from obsessive compulsive disorder."

Check out the rest of the article for more on this issue, as well as Huffington's assessment of the Internet's ability to spread, and more importantly discredit, rumors. And, check back on the blog tomorrow for an update on Huffington's talk on campus.

Indy Media in Zimbabwe

Here's an article that I found pretty interesting: "Independent Media Still Struggling in Zimbabwe."The article discusses how Zimbabwe's new government had promised to process all media license applications, but had not issued any new licenses since the new government came into power eight months ago. Several people or organizations prepared to start publishing, but were not issued their licenses as they had expected.  Despite the fact that the government has not issued any new independent media licenses, the government has launched two more of its own newspapers.

I guess this reminded me to count my blessings - I am able to publish this blog. Anyone can start their own newspaper or Web site in the U.S., provided they have the capital and resources of course. It's truly unfortunate that there are places in the world that do not enjoy even a small amount of press freedom. After all, without the ability to inform the public about issues of importance, how can one expect injustices to change?

For more information on media in Zimbabwe, head over to this Web site. It has information about some of the country's state-run media outlets, a section offering assistance to journalists, and a history of media in Zimbabwe.

Lessons from Kate Sheppard

Today in Jeff Cohen's Independent Media class, Kate Sheppard -- an IC grad -- paid us a visit. She got her start as an intern with Grist in Seattle before eventually becoming their political reporter in Washington D.C. After being laid off, she was quickly hired by Mother Jones, a magazine known for its investigative reporting.

Here's some of the most important things I learned from her today:

• It's a good idea to specialize in something. Sheppard is an expert in environmental politics, so media outlets know that she can cover these types of stories very well. Therefore, it's a good idea to diversify your skills and breadth of knowledge beyond simply being able to write a good story.
• Sheppard said her biggest challenge in finding a career in indy media was that outlets don't have the money to pay for good reporting. She told us there's no lack of need for good writing and reporting, but many outlets simply don't have the funds to pay reporters as they should be.
• She also emphasized the importance of social networking tools, including Twitter. She said she received one job offer because of links to her writing she tweeted. Personally, I don't have a Twitter account yet, but her account of how much it helped her definitely made it sound advantageous to register for one.

Fake AP Stylebook

Here's something fun I stumbled onto today. It's called the Fake AP Stylebook and you can find it on Twitter. Basically, it's a bunch of tweets that poke fun at the Stylebook or newspapers. Here's a few of my favorite gems:

• You cannot libel the dead. You can, however, libel the undead. Vampires have professional lawyers and hypnotism, so be careful. 
• Your newsroom is alloted one usage of "Trial of the Century" every ten years. Please choose carefully.
• Always remember to close all parentheses. We're not paying to air condition the entire paragraph.

You can read a bit more about it in this Oct. 23 post on the Huffington Post. Check it out and enjoy!

How The Huffington Post Finds Headlines

What makes a great headline? Well, the Huffington Post has got a few ideas on how to choose the perfect ones. After all, a headline is a newspaper's or Web site's way of selling its product. A headline must be grabbing and informative at the same time in order to draw readers and keep them on your site.

Since September, Josh Young, the HuffPost's social media editor, has solicited better headlines from time to time through Twitter. While this way of developing new headlines isn't the best, it does make great use of the readership.

The HuffPost also applies A/B testing to some of its lead headlines. Using this method, one headline is shown to some readers, while another headline is shown to another group of people. After only a few minutes -- which is plenty of time for a high-traffic, continually-updated site like the HuffPost -- the headline that generated the most traffic becomes the headline that everyone sees when they log on to the site.

This method definitely has merit. By using A/B testing, the HuffPost can see which headline is best. Of course, this method only selects the best of two possible options, so in theory there could be several better options out there that weren't written. Still, A/B testing is a good option to crafting better headlines that seems to be working well for the HuffPost.

You can read more about this here.

An Update on Net Neutrality

In a move that could potentially have a major impact on independent media outlets online, the Federal Communications Commission voted unanimously Thursday to begin drafting rules to prevent Internet providers from acting as gatekeepers. The federal government has so far taken the back seat on net neutrality issues, but with this decision, the FCC will begin a month-long process to develop statutes on what Internet Service Providers can do. Some companies, such as Google, have already spoken out in support of this. On the other hand, ISPs have argued that they should be able to regulate their ever-shrinking bandwidth, which would obviously benefit the ISPs more than their consumers. You can read The Washington Post's story about this here.

What do you think of this? Net neutrality has always been an important topic for Internet users and online content producers, but now this ruling has pushed it into the forefront. Personally, I believe the Internet should remain entirely unregulated, except for things that obvious must be removed by law, like child pornography or private medical records for instance. The vast majority of content, however, should not be tampered with. The beauty of the Internet is that anyone can post to it. It's the lack of regulation that allows independent media Web sites to break news that the mainstream media won't dare to cover. I think the Net should remain an avenue for unfiltered discussion. Do you agree?

You can get the basics on net neutrality by checking out this short video. It was made by SaveTheInternet.com and it's both an informational video and a promotional video for the Web site, so take it with a grain of salt.

Blogger Responds to New FTC Rule

As I discussed before, the Federal Trade Commission ruled that bloggers who review products must disclose any ties to the manufacturer of that product because of advertising or other factors. To me, this was a good thing - it gives readers more information by holding bloggers accountable for any conflicts of interest that may arise. However, now at least one blogger has spoken out against this. Britt Aboutaleb, a blogger at Fashionista, said this is actually unfair to bloggers because print reporters are not held to the same standards. She wrote that fashion magazine are not required to publicize that certain products are chosen as features because of an advertising relationship.

While this may be true, it does not change the fact that the intention of the new rule is just and beneficial for readers, which is who writers are working for, in a sense. Furthermore, the blogger made sweeping statements that all magazines do this, which I think is just not true. This past weekend, I visited several magazine offices in New York City — including W, a high-fashion magazine, and Woman's Day, a women's magazine aimed at middle-aged mothers — and found this wasn't the case at every place. The editors at W and Woman's Day said they receive products that they or other members of their team test in order to see which would be best for their readership. At least at these two magazines, the products received are not part of a business relationship where coverage is based on advertising dollars. While I agree that magazines should disclose that they receive these products free of charge, it doesn't change that the new FTC rule was made with good intentions to help blog readers.

In short, I think the FTC should hold print publications to this standard, but that doesn't change the fact that the rule is necessary to improve the quality of the work being done on the Net as well. Would you agree? Or, do you think the FTC should have cleaned up the print industry before moving on to independent blogs or Web sites?

Lessons from Mark Finkelstein

On Tuesday, our Independent Media class was visited by Mark Finkelstein, a conservative blogger. He got his start blogging for NewsBusters, a Web site that aspires to document and expose instances of liberal bias in the media. He later started his own personal blog, called FinkelBlog, but found that his personal site did not even close to the amount of hits his work for NewsBusters did. For that reason, his last post on FinkelBlog was July 28, 2009. The personal site still exists, but he has only posted on NewsBusters since then because it generates more hits due to linking on outside sites, including the Drudge Report.

This all begs the question: What can bloggers do to generate more hits to their blogs? Can personal blogs, like Finkelblog, ever compete with larger sites, such as NewsBusters? Should bloggers abandon smaller blogs in order to get more hits on other sites? Here's a few suggestions I had for generating some more hits: Actually break news. Link to other Web sites. Encourage reader comments to keep them on your site and interested in what you have to say. Use photos, videos, charts, and the like to make your blog more visually appealing. Optimize your blogs for search engines. And, of course, update frequently. Do you have any other suggestions?

1,000 True Fans

1,000 True Fans - that's all a creator really needs, this article argues. It says that all one needs is a certain number of people who will buy anything you put out, see any show you perform and follow your work religiously. After reading the piece, I had a few thoughts: First, the basic premise of the theory is more or less correct. It is more advantageous to have a number of completely dedicated patrons than to have many minimally dedicated fans, or people who buy something you do once and then move on to something else. (The writer call these fans Lesser Fans.) Obviously, Lesser Fans can boost sales and help move a product too, but they aren't the type of fans one hopes to generate to sustain a long career.

Additionally, the Internet has helped put this concept into practice. The writer of the article touched on this somewhat by discussing how someone can put out a new song on their Web site, post a new update to their blog or put up a new gallery of their work online in order to please True Fans who crave new content constantly. The writer, however, missed small simple ways that a producer could appease their legion of loyal fans with new technology online. Simply posting a Twitter update or new Facebook status can get fans talking. Or, better yet, actually communicating with a fan by posting on a fan's Facebook page or sending them a personal Tweet can really make that fan's day, which would influence them to buy your product when it is released later.

For bloggers, this means they should update their page at least on a daily basis. By continually updating a page every day or several times a day, a blogger can drive traffic to their page and give True Fans the new content they are craving. This practice will then spur fans to remain loyal to a blog, thereby helping to increase ad revenue to keep the blog afloat. Furthermore, a blogger should respond to comments if it's possible to do so. Of course, in the case of a story that generates hundreds of comments, it would be impossible to respond to them all. For a blogger just starting out, however, it could help to turn a Lesser Fan into a True Fan by responding to their personal comment.

NY Times Cuts 100 Jobs

In more depressing news for a journalism major, it was reported yesterday that the New York Times will be cutting 100 positions before the end of the year. That represents about 8 percent of the newsroom. The Times had already slashed a similar amount of jobs in 2008, and issued a 5 percent pay cut for the beginning of this year. Additionally, its budget for freelancers was trimmed considerably as well.

This all contributes to the general sense that newspapers are dying and journalism is shifting onto the Net, where independent sites can provide similar (or even superior) coverage for a fraction of the cost of a major operation like the Times. Layoffs like these are disheartening for someone like me, who likes having the physical print product to take with me and read over lunch, on the bus or elsewhere without being tied down by a computer. Newspapers need to find a way to turn around this terrible trend.

Facebook Asks, "Where do you Live?"

While browsing CNN, I came across this article, which discusses the perils of Facebook asking the seemingly simple question, "Where do you live?" While for many of us the answer is easy — just name a city and everyone probably knows exactly where you're talking about — for others the answer is less obvious. For instance, while Facebook considers Tibet's capital, Lhasa, to be part of China, most who live there reject China's power over them. Jerusalem, which we all know is a hotly contested area between Palestine and Israel, is only listed as part of Israel on Facebook. Cases like these are not unheard of throughout a world where countries like Pakistan, Israel, India, China and others have gone to war over disputed regions.

Without reading this piece on CNN, this entire issue never would have crossed my mind. Living comfortably in the United States, it's easy to forget that there are places in world where something as simple as your hometown is up for debate. Now, Facebook is forced to addressed this issue to make its content acceptable to people from all parts of the world. that mainstream media wouldn't dare to touch, much less dive into wholeheartedly. It shows that the media — mainstream and independent outlets alike — must adjust its coverage to include all factions of its audience, even when dealing with something as conventionally simple as the question of where one calls home.

FTC to Change Advertising Rules for Bloggers

A New York Times article that appeared earlier tonight reported that the Federal Trade Commission announced it would be revising rules about endorsements and testimonials that have been on the books since 1980. Beginning December 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with the product their reviewing, including free giveaways or payment from an advertiser, which occurs more frequently. Celebrities must also disclose their ties to companies if they promote a product on a talk show or Web site.

The new rules are no surprise - they've been under consideration since November. This change means that the previously uninhibited flow of free stuff to bloggers may come to an end. Furthermore, as reporter Tim Arango suggests, this move hints that the government might attempt to regulate the Internet in the same way it regulates other forms of media, like television or newspapers.

In my opinion, I view this move as a good thing. Bloggers need to be held accountable for their potential conflicts of interest in the same way as television or print reporters. Hopefully it doesn't mean that more regulations are on the way for the Net, but this change, as its stands, is a positive one and will help readers to get the facts, rather than misinformation bloggers could have been paid to provide from advertisers.

Read a Review & Hear the Music!

Last week, I was bored and surfing around the Net, and I stumbled upon Fluxblog, which calls itself "the very first MP3 blog." I'm not sure how accurate that statement is, but for what it's worth, I've never come across another one so far. Fluxblog reviews albums and singles from well-known, emerging and unknown music artists. Unlike print media and other Internet sites, however, this blog actually provides readers with playable MP3s so that readers can hear the music for themselves. Readers can then use the review, as well as the actual song, to decide if they'd like to purchase the entire disc. (The songs cannot be downloaded and only remain on the site for a limited amount of time in order to protect the artists from piracy.) I've always wondered why more music sites didn't provide clips of songs with reviews or news articles. With the technology available today, it seems only natural to provide people with as much information as possible. In the case of a music Web site, that means providing actual music to accompany the text. Fluxblog is just another example of an independent site using the technology available to provide its readers something not found elsewhere in the mainstream.

American Labor Press

In Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in American History, author Rodger Streitmatter discusses various examples of revolutionary presses that changed some aspect of society throughout U.S. history. Last night I read two chapters - one on the early American labor movement, and another on The Liberator and its effect on slavery. One thing I found striking in the chapters was how similar these rebellious forms of print media were to our independent media today whether they be online, broadcast or in print. For instance, leading newspapers had little regard for the new movement being launched by laborers in the 1820s, and instead sided with the merchants and owners. Today, much of the information or angles presented in independent media have a very limited presence, at best, in the mainstream press. Furthermore, the ideas presented in the labor presses or The Liberator were often too radical initially for many people because they weren't talked about in mainstream journalism, which can often be the case with some of the stories presented by independent journalists.

So far, I really enjoy this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in the history of journalism. I read another book by Streitmatter last semester called Mightier Than the Sword and found it interesting and very easy to read. I've already started reading another chapter and enjoy this reading much more than reading for some of my other classes. (This chapter is about Margaret Sanger and her important role in the movement towards birth control education.)

"Trouble the Water" Screens at IC

Last night, documentary filmmakers Tia Lessin and Carl Deal brought their Oscar-nominated film, "Trouble the Water," to Ithaca College for a screening. The film travels to New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and shows viewers a new side of the struggle in a narrative documentary style. I was not able to attend the screening last night due to a conflict with my job in the Commons, but was able to attend a luncheon today, during which the filmmakers sat down with students and faculty to discuss the film and other issues relating to independent media and documentary filmmaking. One topic they discussed was how they really wanted the film to screen in theaters because audiences there tend to be more captive and engaged than those watching a film on television or the Internet. I thought this point was very interesting, especially when it's related to the current situation in the newspaper industry. A person picking up a paper tends to be more actively engaged than someone scanning the Net for the latest headlines. So, if newspapers decline and die out -- as many assume they will in the coming decade or so -- what will become of the readership? Will they actively seek out their news from other mediums? But, I digress. Lessin and Deal also talked about how they didn't take no for an answer when finding sources for "Trouble the Water" and other projects they worked on. I really admire this because, as someone who's a bit more shy, I don't know if I'd be able to easily assert my right to access certain information like they did. Since I wasn't able to see the film last night, I would love to see it very soon because it sounds like an interesting, important film that anyone would enjoy and benefit from seeing.

Newspapers Should be Endowed?!

The theory expressed in the op-ed piece "News You Can Endow," written by David Swensen and Michael Schmidt, is one I've never heard before. In the piece, they argue that in order for newspapers to survive their current economic situation, newspapers should become endowed just like colleges and universities. They reason that endowments would increase newspapers' independence and allow for greater financial stability. Furthermore, Swensen and Schmidt agree that there would be less pressure on newspapers from stockholders or advertisers, thereby making news organizations more honest and better run. In theory, I think this idea is very sound; in fact, by their logic, the only negative aspect would be that newspapers could no longer endorse a political candidate due to legal constraints on endowments. Additionally, I -- as well as most others -- agree that newspapers' current business model must be amended or updated in order for newspapers to remain viable in today's digital age where most people get their news from the Internet. However, the amount of money needed to finance a single newspaper, much less all of the newspapers in the nation, is extraordinary. Who will finance these papers? In the article, they mention that The New York Times would require an endowment of $5 billion -- certainly no small amount of money. Additionally, while papers would no longer have to answer to shareholders, would those putting their money into the paper want something in return? In the end, newspapers may find themselves answering to a whole new group of people. While Stensen and Schmidt make a strong argument for endowments, I'm not 100 percent sold on the idea. Fundamentally, however, their argument has resonance: Newspapers must change their business models to survive.