"If it can't sell itself in the market, we have to improve the product," he added, in a separate tweet. "If the future of journalism has to rely on foundations and donations... it's not sustainable."

Maus hits nail on head. Anything else (non-profit) becomes an advocacy group and automatically loses credibility in the realm of objectivity. If the bottom line is the dollar, media has to take dollars from many sources instead of one or two.

I disagree with D. If they can find the funding, a nonprofit investigative journalism entity would be good for the city. At the same time, it doesn't necessarily have to be nonprofit. Whether it's a blog like Bike Portland or a so-called "real" journalistic outfit like The Oregonian, these entities simply need to live within their means. People still want professional news and journalism delivered, but the old model simply needs tweaking. I think a lot of newspapers have had a business model in the past that is not sustainable anymore. But that doesn't mean a for-profit model can't be successful.

As an experienced newspaper professional, the product, no matter what form it takes, is all about content. Content that is reliable, honest, fair, unbiased and not swayed by power, political influence or money. This may sound strange coming from someone who grew up on the business side, but content without integrity is a soapbox of poor opinion. The best job of journalism is when you equally piss off people on both sides of the issue at hand. THIS is what people want to know, what they want to read and what they may even pay for. It's called an audience.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Alena

http://grantfoundation.net