Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SilentZ who wrote (491646)	6/29/2009 10:32:44 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573954

Out of the economic ashes, a new newspaper model Ryan Blethen / Times editorial columnist Recession could fuel new era of local newspaper ownership By Ryan Blethen Times editorial page editor For nearly 40 years, newspapers have been acquired by publicly traded corporations or ever-expanding privately held, but highly leveraged, companies. The inexorable, greed-fueled feast might finally be coming to an end. An industry-transforming recession has exposed the decay of decades of corporate and profit-driven newspaper ownership. In the detritus comes real opportunity. Some of the remaining Bigs are going to have no choice but to get out of the newspaper business or shed a number of what corporate types call "properties." This jettisoning of newspapers and the near valueless Wall Street assessments could give rise to an era of independent and local ownership. One of the many intriguing ideas that could again place newspapers in the hands of local ownership is a new take on a tested business model: low-profit, limited-liability corporations. The new incarnation is called an L3C. The L3C might be the perfect pairing for journalism and business. It would permit a company to act as a nonprofit and attract investors but allow for modest earnings. Even better, the overriding reason for an L3C is the public role it endows. This is a model made for the mission of newspapers. Victor Pickard is examining L3Cs as senior research fellow at Free Press, a national media-reform organization. He said that L3Cs could free up newspapers to focus on serving communities with quality journalism. "The low-profit model would let newspapers focus on their social good — that is, newsgathering — and not just the bottom line. It takes from the nonprofit and for-profit worlds: giving a return to investors, creating new avenues for philanthropy and focusing on local community service." This does not mean an L3C newspaper would no longer have to worry itself with traditional revenue streams such as advertising and subscriptions and single-copy sales. These would be part of the revenue mix. Having a revenue stream that consists of what is in place with the addition of civic-minded investors is a much less radical and intimidating change to the traditional newspaper business model. It keeps what newspapers have with advertising and circulation dollars, strengthens it with an infusion of new money and is built on a foundation of broad and aggressive journalism. Of course, there are hurdles to the L3C model. Only a handful of states offer it and there is no federal statute. L3Cs might not be attractive to newspaper owners like my family, which owns The Seattle Times. Switching to an L3C would mean giving up control. Other owners might have creditors or investors that are not keen on the notion of low profits. There are real opportunities for the first L3C newspaper. Tribune Co. is in bankruptcy and its newspapers might soon be controlled by the company's creditors. Any of these newspapers, which include the Los Angeles Times and the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, could attract a local ownership group that utilizes the low-profit model. I have written in previous columns, what does not work for The Times might for another newspaper. The more options the industry has, the better. Newspapers will be better off out of the stifling grip of investors narrowly interested in profits. The time is right for newspapers to explore new ownership structures. The low-profit model might be part of the solution. seattletimes.nwsource.com

To: SilentZ who wrote (491646)	6/29/2009 10:35:24 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1573954

More Money for Public Transit? Congress is readying a sweeping six-year, multibillion-dollar plan that may mean more money for public transit and less for new roads and highways. It could be the biggest overhaul of America's transportation priorities since the Eisenhower Administration paved the way for the nation's interstate highway system in the 1950s. Proponents of greater investment in public transit say it will ease congestion and conserve energy. The new legislation could drastically alter historic funding ratios, which have favored highways and bridges over mass-transit projects 80% to 20%. "A national surface-transportation policy for our country is long overdue," says Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), sponsor of a companion measure that he says would reduce the number of miles Americans drive, limit harmful emissions, and increase mass-transit ridership. On the House side, Rep. James Oberstar (D., Minn.), who chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is working on his own bill, though new spending ratios have yet to be agreed upon. "We would like to break that 80/20 barrier," says David Goldberg of Transportation for America, a coalition that includes powerful lobbying groups like AARP, the League of Conservation Voters, and the National Association of Realtors. But groups like the American Highway Users Alliance say that funding for mass transit shouldn't come at the expense of roads and bridges, noting that the government’s transportation trust fund comes largely from taxes on motor fuels. "We have to be very cautious about bumping up transit without taking a good, hard look at highway funding in this country," says Daisy Singh, the group's project manager. — J. Scott Orr parade.com