Blocking ads for better journalism

I’ve done something recently to make a small contribution to the future of thriving, responsible journalism.

I’ve installed Adblock Plus on my Mac. The program strips virtually all ads from my regular news sites.

If everyone installed the ad blocker program, we would wipe out a traditional revenue source available to the news business as it moves on line.

Of course the industry is struggling to come up with feasible economic models that work on the web. Unless news organizations can maneuver around ad blockers, they won’t be able to count on advertising as part of their plans.

That’s just fine with me.

I don’t feel guilty about blocking ads, including those that dance onto the screen and obscure the news.

Adblocker and I are just doing our bit to take journalism off the profit-driven treadmill that has so undercut journalism recently.

I’ve always hoped that journalism would be seen as a quasi-public utility. To serve the public interest, it should not be subject to the incentives of the commercial marketplace and the stock market.

I side with those who are looking to foundations to pay for independent, quality journalism. Among the foundations should be those that raise tax-deductible money from readers hungry for in-depth, unbiased reporting.

In this FOX News age, we need to be reminded that the goal of the news media should be to report and inform, not to harangue and create celebrity blowhards. For that reason, foundation boards should consist of journalists, not politicians, investors or others with vested interests.

If you want to help journalism, check out Adblock. And to see one way journalism could go with foundation support, visit Pro Publica.

Disclosure: My own neighborhood news site, The Hillsdale News, has sponsors that Adblock can’t touch (at least so far). The pittance I ask from local businesses pays solely for web hosting and support, about $600 a year. I volunteer my work as reporter and editor. If I were to make a non-volunteer, non-profit of The Hillsdale News, I’d switch to reader contributions and seek foundation support.

Going with what we had

My journalism class (Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Class of ’69) is approaching its 40th reunion at the end of this month. The e-mail traffic has been frenzied in preparation.

It’s good reading with this group, which, as you might expect, knows how to turn a phrase.

Several have recalled that eons ago in the school’s writing classes, we were reminded, as deadlines loomed, “to go with what you’ve got” — for better or worse.

Back then it usually was worse, but never mind.

Forty years on, my classmates are ordering sweatshirts that read: “We went with what we had.”

I won’t bore you with specifics, but what we “had” since graduation was pretty darn good.

That said, 40 years ago none of us imagined that our own retirements would be accompanied by the retirements of newspapers themselves.

All of which led one wag to suggest that the words on the sweatshirts should read:

"What we had — went."