In principle, I agree with you absolutely,

I’m not sure that this would work out in practice, though. Now that even printing a nursery rhyme can be controversial, reporters are exposed to political attacks from powers that can go as high up as the governemtn.

Staffers have the backing of the parent company when that happens. Would this non-profit be able to provide the same support?

With all their misteps, I really pity reporters of all kinds these days. If the news is bad, it’s often made out to be the reporter’s fault, and killing the messenger is a national sport.

A good investigative reporter needs strong support to survive. An intermediary printer would not provide it and may impde it if that turns out to be to their advantage.

Power must be investigated — left, right, elected, corporate — PERIOD.

Remember when journalists used to actually do this stuff?

There are a few still around… I know some of them. Unfortunately many of those remaining gems don’t feel like they’re wanted, valued, or otherwise feel comfortable in what their profession has generally morphed into and are increasingly taking refuge in PR firms, private investigative companies and other organizations to which 10 years ago they wouldn’t have contemplated moving.

Bring it on.

One is that there is a lower cost source of labor outside, which is explicitly stated not to be the case here.

Another is if the cost of work, especially the rist of fixed costs sitting idle, can be factored across multiple outsourcing customers. That’s probably true here – Steiger will be in trouble, not any particular newspaper, if this high-powered team is left sitting idle.

So it seems to come down to a tradeoff. Obviously a newspaper that sources a meaty, investigative, story from the outside is going to derive less cachet and brand enhancement from it, but they will get the story at an effectively much lower cost because they are buying it piecemeal.

There is also the issue of whether or not a single story will be sold to multiple papers, and under what terms.

To me a clearer business model is for them just to publish independently on-line, subscription only, and develop their own high quality brand and collect their own Pulitzers.

That aside, the first two comments show why it wouldn;t work. For some folks, everthing is a lie unless is echoes their own minds.

That’s also at the root of a good part of the crticism of the media. While they deserve much criticism, there is no news report possible these days which isn’t seen as biased by someone.

That there is not nearly enough investigative reporting done is more than clear.
That no offer to fill the gap will satisfy is also clear.

Too bad. We lose either way.