The Future of Journalism and Foundations

On Tuesday, I attended a program at Philanthropy New York called American Journalism: Views on Reconstructing the Falling Industry. I wanted to post my thoughts earlier, but the Foundation has had quite a busy week with Committee Meetings and gathering together our Board Materials for an upcoming meeting.

Speakers on Tuesday's event were Michael Schudson, co-author of The Reconstruction of American Journalism and Professor of Communication at Columbia’s University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and Calvin Sims, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation. Vincent Stehle moderated the discussion.

The discussion started off with a series of thoughts about the role that government should and could play in this crisis. While Schudson have several recommendations urging further government support for media (including expanding support for public media such as NPR and CPB, and funding for more local news). He laid out several justifications for this view, such as the fact that historically the government as played this role, and we do it in a lot of other capacities such as social sciences etc. Sims on the other hand, appeared a bit more cautious about the role of government. Although he did advocate for some role, he had more serious questions about what impact government support would have and how exactly it would play out. He advocated for more media education, media literacy and. He also discussed how competition invariably leads to better news production and said we need to look at media ownership issues to ensure there isn't increased media concentration, as well as developing new tools in the digital media landscape.

With respect to the role that foundations can play in this crisis. Both the speakers and participants realized that foundations will not be a panacea for this crisis, but there are ways in which they can help the industry as it is in transition. Some ideas including funding online investigative news organizations (although you must think about long term sustainability), funding collaboration, finding new models for reporting and disseminating journalism, keeping competition alive and studying the transition to an online media system.

It was a great event overall, and even though I couldn't stay for the whole thing, I found it to be quite helpful in thinking about what role foundations can play in revitalizing media. Philanthropy New York does a really great job of posting resources after each program, so if you missed the event, or just want to have a list of more resources that were mentioned on Tuesday, you can go here. It actually looks like the summary isn't up yet, but I'm sure it will be shortly.

Thanks to everyone involved, both speakers and other participants!

Fish Farming Looking Better for the Future

Fish farming has gotten a bad rap recently, with horror stories of sewage and antibiotic dumping, water waste, overcrowded pens, and fast-spreading disease between farmed and wild fish pervading the media. But a new method of sustainable fish farming is gaining the confidence of producers and consumers.

The new method is RAS, which stands for Recirculating Aquaculture Systems. In an RAS system, large scale production is possible with little to no water pollution. In fact, 99.75 percent of the water used is cleaned and recycled back into the tank it came from. Waste can be filtered and distributed as fertilizer on nearby farms, or the "used" water can be transferred to aquaponics systems, where plants naturally filter the water, which can be taken back to the RAS.

RAS solves the problems pen farms, or crowded offshore enclosures, currently cause. Pen farmers don't pay for water like RAS farmers, simply because they use ocean water that's already there. This system might save money in the short-term, but the environmental costs over the long term are extreme. Concentrated groups of fish result in the repeated release of concentrated waste around the pen, along with clouds of antibiotics and fertilizers used to keep the close-quartered fish free of disease.

RAS is expensive up front ( a 92,000 square foot system run by leading U.S. company Australis Aquaculture had a start-up cost of $15 million.) But with the conservation community starting to demand producer responsibility for messes made throughout production cycles, the early costs of RAS are starting to look not-so-bad. Steve Summerfelt, director of the Conservation Fund's Freshwater Institute, says despite trepidation in our current economy, investors are starting to support RAS.

Public Perception of Climate Change Not Always Based on Fact

A recent study out of the Cultural Cognition Project looks at the disconnect between climate change science and public perception. Although scientific evidence of AGW (anthropogenic, or human-caused, global warming) becomes less refutable each year, polls show Americans' beliefs in the reality and threats of climate change are actually waning. The chart below, from a study by the Pew Research Center, displays the results of a 1500-person, nation-wide poll conducted in the fall of 2009.

Dan Kahan of Yale Law School, Donald Braman of George Washington Law School, and Hank Jenkins-Smith of the University of Oklahoma co-wrote the Cultural Cognition Project paper, looking at how cultural values shape public priorities and beliefs, as well as political movements and policy decisions.

Overwhelmingly, the study finds that people tend to accept information that best fits within their preconceived world view, regardless of any number of sound scientific studies that could shift their beliefs.

For example, the study found many people initially downplayed the connection between fossil-fuel industry and global warming. But when nuclear power was suggested as an alternative option, as an energy and economic "filler," many who originally diminished the threat of global warming changed their tunes.

The paper also explores the "messenger effect." It turns out that most people are more willing to accept information from the "messenger" who is most like them. Those who already lean toward the skeptic's side of the global warming spectrum are more likely to change their views on the science if it is delivered from someone considered to be already in their camp.

"If you have people who are skeptical of the data on climate change, you can bet that Al Gore is not going to convince them at this point," said Don Braman.

Last week's Kansas City Star ran a story on religion and environmentalism, giving hope that communities traditionally critical of environmentalists might come around -- largely because the message of environmental stewardship is now being delivered by their pastors, people they already trust and identify with.

"The world doesn't listen to just scientists. Although science tells us the facts, the solutions are moral solutions. And people don't look to science for morality. They look to religion," said Carl Safina, an environmental scientist quoted in the article.

The environmental movement's next big challenge may not be finding the best renewable fuel or the best climate model. The movement ahead is shaping up to be one of communication and perception.

UN Study Shows Environmental Cost of Big Business

A United Nations study due for publication this summer calculated the environmental impact of 3,000 of the world's biggest companies, and came up with some troubling results.

Looking at greenhouse gas emissions, water use, toxic pollutants and more, the UN study found over one third of the companies' profits would be eaten up if they were forced to pay for the environmental damage their industries inflict. The price tag amounts to a combined damage of $2.2 trillion, with more than half of that amount attributed to greenhouse gas emissions.

The true global cost is estimated to be even higher, since the initial study only took businesses into account without looking at government or individual energy consumption. The current study also overlooks the social impact on people worldwide who are affected by climate change, in the most extreme cases those labeled "environmental refugees," forced to pack up and move when their homelands are no longer habitable.

Now that the cat's out of the bag, industry leaders are taking a harder look at their environmental impacts, afraid of how their profits would be cut if they were forced to change practices or clean up their messes. But no significant producer responsibility legislation currently exists, and big business will only have to pay if policy makers quantify and demand responsibility on the production end.

Another big sign our current system needs an overhaul is the simple disappearance of basic resources the big polluters need to keep producing and polluting. For example, water shortages in California last year cost agriculture companies hundreds of millions of dollars and a loss of 20,000 jobs. This is just the first example of many resource shortages that will occur if big businesses don't trade in linear modes of production for closed loop systems.

Philanthropy New York Takes a Look at Journalism

I’m very interested in the discussion around the future of journalism both from the perspective of a Foundation and also as a graduated student studying Media, Culture, and Communication at NYU. I blogged last week about an event I attended where Robert McChesney and John Nichols discussed their recent book, The Death and Life of American Journalism.

Well it’s clearly something that other funders are interested in as well. Next week on Tuesday, February 23rd, Philanthropy New York (formerly New York Regional Association of Grantmakers) is hosting an event, American Journalism: Views on Reconstructing the Falling Industry from 3:00-5:00pm.

Last year in May, Philanthropy New York hosted a session that framed the issues that have led to the collapse of so many print media companies. Yet they recognize that the problem still exists; every day community newspapers are downsizing, cutting staff, and even declaring bankruptcy. The program will address the fundamental question: Why does it matter?

Speakers for next Tuesday’s event include Michael Schudson, co-author of The Reconstruction of American Journalism and Professor of Communication at Columbia’s University’s Graduate School of Journalism, and Calvin Sims, Program Officer at the Ford Foundation. Vincent Stehle will be moderating the discussion. I’m looking forward to hearing their views on “the role of government, the role of philanthropy, the role of professional journalists, and the changing role of the audience in reconstructing this falling industry.”

I’ll be attending the event Tuesday (at least until 4:30 when I’ll have to leave to run over to NYU for my digital media class) and will probably live tweet the event. I’ll also blog about it the day after. If you’re interested in attending you can RSVP directly to register@philanthropynewyork.org. The event is free for Philanthropy New York Members and open to non-members for $100.

February 23rd Innocence Project Event

As a longtime supporter of the Innocence Project, we are pleased to host a breakfast and briefing for philanthropic leaders on Tuesday, February 23rd, 8:30-10:00 a.m. to highlight the IP’s important work. The breakfast will include an interactive discussion to be led by IP Executive Director Maddy deLone, and featuring DNA exoneree Steven Barnes.

Since the Innocence Project was founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld at Cardozo School of Law, 250 people in the United States have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA testing, including 17 who were on death row. The IP’s pioneering use of DNA technology to exonerate innocent people has reshaped the landscape of the criminal justice system, paving the way for the most significant reforms in over 40 years. Accordingly, the IP works with allies at the national, state and local levels to reveal the systemic flaws, enact meaningful reform, and protect innocent Americans from wrongful arrest and conviction.

The February 23rd briefing will include a discussion of how DNA exonerations have reframed the terms of the national debate about the death penalty, causing even staunch supporters to re-examine their position. Most recently, reports in 2009 revealed that Cameron Todd Willingham was wrongfully executed by the state of Texas in 2004 for allegedly setting the fire that killed his three children. Due largely to the IP’s five-year effort to have the forensic evidence in the case examined, we now have the most convincing proof to date that an innocent man has been executed in the United States.

This breakfast will take place at the Overbrook Foundation offices. Space is extremely limited and is available on a first come first serve basis. If you're a philanthropic leader and you're interested in attending, please RSVP by contacting me (Elizabeth Miller) at 212.661.8710 or emiller@overbrook.org.

A Sustainable Future Discussed at Columbia University

Last night I attended a lecture and panel discussion sponsored by the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation (CERC), an Overbrook grantee and part of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. The talk centered around Navarre, a region of Spain that has been particularly successful converting to a renewable energy economy. Although covering a small area and serving a population just over 600,000, Navarre has emerged as a global front-runner and example of success in merging sustainable energy with a sustainable economy.

Shahid Naeem, Director of Science at CERC, acted as moderator. Naeem began the evening by referring to the term "sustainable development" as "slippery," qualifying the night's discussion as a look at leadership in relation to sustainability, and how collaboration behind a strong vision worked in Navarre. Through projected graphs, Naeem showed how the use of the term "sustainability" spiked after its introduction in 1987, and yet with increasing use and discussion of the term, carbon emissions globally went up, and wealth and biodiversity decreased. Naeem suggested this juxtaposition could have been a result of poor leadership as opposed to a lack of understanding or ambition.

Miguel Sanz Sesma, President of Navarre in Spain, spoke first, stressing that sustainable development includes social responsibility, and vice versa. One cannot be achieved without the other. Sesma attributed the success in his region to a collaboration between private, public and government sectors. Achieving sustainable development in Navarre involved businesses, universities, politicians, and technical centers including both skilled and unskilled workers. Today, Navarre has one half the unemployment rate compared with the rest of Spain, a milestone Sesma connects directly to the government's involvement with renewables.

Esteban Morras Andres, former director of ACCIONA Energia spoke next. Andres sees our current energy, economic and climate crises as opportunities to overcome imbalances in the wealth and dependence of countries all over the world. Only some countries have oil or coal resources, Adres said, but all have equal access to renewables -- sun, wind, water or biofuel.

George Kell, executive director of the UN Global Compact, talked about the business community's lukewarm reaction to Copenhagen's lukewarm outcome. "We need to showcase solutions,"Kell said, such as the environmental and economic successes of Navarre, as a way to encourage collaboration between the public and private sectors.

Kell also spoke about recent media criticism of the IPCC's scientific credibility. "We should never forget that the bulk of scientific evidence remains today stronger than it was six months ago. The fundamentals about climate change have unfortunately not changed," Kell said. Kell ended his remarks by emphasizing the need for businesses to move away from an "obsession with short-term returns," and look to examples such as those coming out of Navarre for inspiration to value long-term results over quick, unsustainable fixes.

Unfortunately, the panel's final speaker, Elke Weber, co-director of the Center for Research on Environmental Decisions, explained that humans are hard-wired to respond to short-term threats as opposed to those requiring long-term reactions. Basic human nature will inevitably be a piece of the puzzle when building a renewable economy, a shift that may require sacrifice in the short term for greater returns farther down the line. CRED recently published a downloadable guide, The Psychology of Climate Change Communication, that addresses some of these short-term/long-term disconnects.

President Sesma had the last word, explaining that most of Navarre's success in sustainable development is due to the willingness of business, government and the public to collaborate with a common goal. According to Sesma, a major help along the road to sustainability was the lack of lobbyists in Spain -- the government got on board, and that was that. The United States is of course much larger and our politicians are notoriously influenced by corporate lobbyists. We can only hope examples like Navarre's will trump the lobbyists' siren songs, and the sooner the better.

Biofuels Get a Second Look

Last week the Obama administration announced a plan to ramp up the nation's production and use of corn-based ethanol, even as studies out of Europe show the life-cycle of biofuels yields a carbon footprint not significantly lower than gasoline's.

The United States' renewable standard requires alternative fuels to produce 20 percent less carbon emissions than gasoline (compared with Europe's 35 percent standard.) But this measurement gets tricky when the entire process of clearing land for crops, growing the crops and producing the fuel is taken into account. Burning biofuels may be less carbon intensive than gasoline, but the production process may cancel out this benefit.

The Obama administration is "selling" its biofuel idea as more of a jobs and economy plan than a climate action plan. Production of corn ethanol on U.S. soil, projected by the new plan to triple in the next twelve years, will add millions of American jobs and release us from our dependence on foreign oil. But environmentalists and climate scientists are saying a new dependence on corn-based ethanol will only add new problems. The administration is basing its assessments of ethanol's success on unprovable future projections of increased crop yields and production efficiency.

The Daily Climate quotes Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an Overbrook grantee: "It seems a little far-fetched at first glance. You can kind of talk yourself into it, but in any case they make a lot of assumptions on what yield will look like, what the markets will look like."

But the administration is pushing forward with biofuels anyway, eliciting criticism that the EPA has caved in to the farm lobby.

At the same time, The New York Times reported yesterday that the European Commission may soon retract its original pro-biofuel stance. Looking at Indirect Land Use Change, (the impact of adding cropland, clearing natural vegetation and tilling carbon-rich soil), the benefits of biofuels over gasoline are difficult to reconcile.

IPCC's Future Questioned

With lingering disappointments from Copenhagen and frustrations over roadblocks to climate legislation in the Senate, a growing number of environmentalists, scientists and journalists are asking if our fundamental approach to connecting science and policy may be off track.

A story by Peter N. Spotts in yesterday's Christian Science Monitor asks, "Is it Time to Overhaul the IPCC?" The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established in 1988 as an international, nonpartisan body charged with the task of reviewing and assessing science related to climate change, has recently suffered a slew of criticism ranging from balanced deliberations to excoriating harangues following climategate.

One of the more mild discussions centers around what is perceived as the IPCC's increasing rigidity even as new scientific developments reveal new uncertainties. Critics complain the Panel has become monolithic, issuing pronouncements as though it were the only legitimate voice at the table. The IPCC is increasingly perceived as unwilling to inform the public of all the steps it takes along the way to reach its conclusions. More damning criticisms come from climate change skeptics, who charge the IPCC has published and embellished faulty conclusions.

But despite the accusations and arguments, there is overwhelming consensus in the scientific community that the IPCC's basic conclusion remains sound: the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate, and human activity is largely to blame for it.

Click on these links to read more about the discussion: the CEJ Journal; a pre-Copenhagen take on science and policy from The Daily Climate; and a "let's get on with it" take from David King, former Chief Scientific Advisor of the U.K.

NOAA Launches New Climate Change Service

The Obama administration announced a restructuring of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, creating a federal climate service accessible to all Americans with the click of a mouse.

NOAA has already introduced a NOAA Climate Services web portal, described by Commerce Secretary Gary Locke as a "one stop shop of climate services."

Although open to everyone, the Climate Service is aimed at those industries and fields most directly affected by climate change, such as agriculture, water management, ski resorts and insurance. It is expected that over 500 NOAA employees will be redirected to work for the new Climate Service, but funds will be reallocated rather than added to avoid raising the budget. Because of the large scale of the restructuring, the Climate Service will have to be approved by Congress.

NOAA Climate Services will act as a balance to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, thus far the definitive global voice for climate change science. The idea is that skeptics and critics of the IPCC will be able to turn to the NOAA portal for raw data, explanations, and the latest updates in climate change science. The Climate Service will be run as an open source flow of official research, intended by the Obama administration to act as a double-check, or barrier, against skeptics' claims and attacks. Credible science requires peer review and skepticism, but many attempts to discredit the IPCC have been based on politics rather than science. These attacks may be baseless, yet they remain influential to the public and politicians when it comes to forming opinions and making plans for action (or not.)

Check out the NOAA Climate Services page here.

The Death and Life of American Journalism

On Friday afternoon I attended a talk by well-known media scholars and activists Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols. They discussed their new book The Death and Life of American Journalism (Nation Books, 2010). The program was sponsored by Fordham University’s Donald McGannon Communications Research Center and the Bernard L. Schwartz Center for Media, Public Policy and Education.

During the speech, the two proposed a bold strategy for saving journalism. First, Nichols began by reminding many of us what we already know: journalism is in serious crisis. It’s not just the demise of newspapers themselves; it’s a crisis of information. He laid out some pretty bleak statistics about the crisis in 2009: 140 newspapers closed last year; nearly 1,000 news-related jobs are lost per month. And although the internet has been very promising in terms of creating a robust blogosphere, it has not been able to fill the gap as credible news organizations fail to inform our citizenry and the model of commercial-supported advertising crumbles. They also reflected on ensuring free press protection with respect to the First Amendment and reminded us that there were many subsidies to the burgeoning print press of this country’s young nation under our Founding Fathers.

But it wasn’t all depressing! They did provide ideas that can help us overcome this problem, all of which are further outlined in the book which I definitely recommend reading. Some of the ideas mention include a national NewsCorps program (similar to AmericaCorps), and the hybrid L3C (low-profit limited liability company) model. For a more in-depth analysis of what that model entails, click here. All of these will take public subsidies, the two approximate that these could total $30 billion a year. It may seem like a high number, but the cost of losing an informing citizenry is too high not to at least further investigate their idea. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

It was an interesting mix of people, although given the location; I’d guess that at least ¾ of the audience was journalism students, from Fordham, Columbia, NYU and CUNY. Also, there were many supporters of Free Press there, McChesney and Nichols founded the national media reform organization, in 2002/2003 to further investigate this crisis. No doubt they will be extremely active as they pursue some of these national reforms over the upcoming months.

A Milestone for The Innocence Project

It’s a landmark worth celebrating for the Innocence Project. Yesterday, Freddie Peacock was the 250th DNA exoneration nationwide. Peacock, from Rochester, New York, was wrongfully convicted of rape 33 years ago was exonerated yesterday. He was sentenced to up to 20 years in prison and released on parole in 1982. He tried to remain on parole because he thought he would never be able to clear his name if he was released from state supervision. For the last 28 years since he left prison, he has fought to prove his innocence even though he was no longer incarcerated. For background on the Peacock case, click here.

Coinciding with this announcement, the Innocence Project released a report today titled "250 Exonerated: Too Many Wrongfully Convicted," which details each one of the exoneration cases and includes statistics on common causes of the wrongful convictions.Among the report's key findings:

• There have been DNA exonerations in 33 states and the District of Columbia.

• The top three states for DNA exonerations are New York (with 25), Texas (with 40) and Illinois (with 29).

• 70% of the 250 people exonerated are people of color (60% are black; nearly 9% are Latino; 29% are white).

The first DNA exoneration in the United States was in 1989. Peter Neufeld, Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Innocence Project said "It's important to remember that DNA exonerations do not solve the problem - they provide scientific proof of its existence, and they illuminate the need for reform."

To check out many of the reforms enacted as well as pending legislation, you can check out this report. Congratulations to everyone involved in the accomplishments of The Innocence Project over the years.

Foundations and Transparency

It's been a pretty busy week for anyone who is interested in foundations and transparency. The Foundation Center launched a new web portal, Glasspockets, which is dedicated to showcasing and promoting foundation transparency.

I was also lucky enough to post my thoughts on the subject courtesy of The Communications Network. What follows is a copy of my post. There was also an interesting follow up post titled What Constitutes Transparency? by Michael Hamill Remaley, the President of Hamill Remaley Communications. If any of these issues interest you, be sure to check out the Foundation Center's new website and these two posts.

Going Beyond Transparency

by Elizabeth Miller

When I think about communications in the context of the work that I do for The Overbrook Foundation, I’m generally focused on how the foundation communicates its goals, processes and awards to “the public.” To me, this effort revolves around the answer to two questions:

1. How can the foundation go beyond doing the minimum of filing out tax forms and reporting our activities to the IRS?
2. 
   How can we best communicate our efforts and provide information that is necessary to complete our grantmaking objectives?

Those questions take on added importance as we grapple with ways to use new social media tools alongside the customary practices of press releases, regular updates to our Web sites, and informal communication. Given that there’s been so much interest in using Web 2.0 technologies such as blogging, tagging and social bookmarking, and social media tools more generally (for example, Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter to name a few), it’s hardly surprising that I’ve attended several conferences, lectures, and panel discussions about how to best incorporate these various new media strategies as part of our external communications program.

Increasingly, discussion inside the foundation has focused on how we at Overbrook can best adopt these tools for our own use, as well as how our grantees can also make use of them, and for what benefit. Still, the importance of effective communication is clearly (and should be) more than just the adoption of new specific new method of technology. I’d argue that the goal of using technology (as either a primary or supplementary method of communication) is to provide audiences more comprehensive information about the work that we do and how we do it, to distribute that information more widely as possible, to inform new (and often younger) audiences and potential grant seekers about what we do, and to make our work at Overbrook more open and transparent. I’d say strategizing about having open communications and understanding its importance is one of the most responsible things that a foundations can do.

Of course, transparency and openness doesn't come naturally to every foundation. Typically the fear of releasing some of the power of that information (for example who you fund, how much you award in grants, and the process by which this gets done) is something that many foundations have been reluctant to do. But since we’re already operating in such a saturation of information and openness thanks to the internet, it should be up to each foundation to make sure that information gets communicated in such a way that it advances the foundations goals at the same time it spreads the message and purpose of our grantmaking.

The way in which foundations can engage in external communication will vary and there is certainly no one size fits all model. It may be as simple as having a Web site that explains the process by which organizations can seek grant awards or that explains your primary areas of focus. It also may be having a newsletter that talks about the work of your grantees; or a blog that highlights discussions at conferences foundation staff attend, accomplishments of grantees, or that features daily observations that draw on a foundation's area of expertise. I’d stress that the method by which you communicate is not necessarily as important as the amount of information you give out, and the clarity by which you do it. A large number of foundations, whether they are private, family, or public foundations, regardless of the issue areas that they support or the total size of their assets, have already begun to recognize the importance of these kinds of external communications.

In the end, I think the long-term success of grantmaking depends on how well we communicate with those we are trying to serve, as well as those who want to understand how we do our work. Adopting the use of social media will inevitably allow us to reach bigger audiences, and will provide us with an efficient and effective channel of communication. But there are ‘"different strokes for different folks’" and so before launching a sophisticated communications program that goes beyond simply being more transparent, we have to ask ourselves what we are trying to accomplish, whom are we trying to reach, and what (and why) we want to tell them or promote.

One final note: throughout this post I’ve stressed the importance of external communication. I also think you cannot overlook the importance of internal communication. In fact, honest and clear communication among staff, trustees, and board members, is certainly just as important. And of course, to effectively reach out you have to make sure there is a consensus on what that message is and why.

If you don’t understand your efforts clearly and are unable to communicate them, there is little hope that anyone else will be able to either.