Nonprofits Are People, Too

Buried in the middle of an interesting New York Times story on an editorial shakeup at Harper's magazine is a throwaway line that I think both reflects a certain ignorance about The Rich and provides a cautionary tale for those who see the nonprofit business model as the panacea for print journalism's continuing crisis:

The foundation model does not entirely protect a publication from a sputtering economy.

Not entirely! I won't repeat myself here, other than to point out that, yeah, even people who have enough money to give substantial amounts to nonprofits are affected by economic downturns. If you sell stuff for a living, and the economy tanks, you are now almost certainly making less of it. Ditto if you're a non-shortseller making your money on Wall Street during a bear market. And for those nonprofits big/smart enough to have substantial reserves, that money, too, is susceptible to rapid depletion via unsafe investing.

Best quote in the story:

"The business side is run like it's Esquire in 1968, and the edit side is run like it's Amnesty International in 1987," said one editorial staff member.

The site you are reading is published by a nonprofit; you can support it by subscribing to the print magazine, giving a donation to the Reason Foundation, or just continuing to read, watch, comment, complain, and forward. Thanks!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    And the people behind them are usually VERY rich because of their huge salaries that come out of the donations.

    Jess
    www.be-invisible.es.tc

  • ||

    That's right anonbot, the Jacket doesn't come cheap.

  • ||

    Holy Holy Holy be Thy Anonymity.

  • J.P. Pennypacker||

    They just don't understand us, do they?

  • ||

    And for those nonprofits big/smart enough to have substantial reserves, that money, too, is susceptible to rapid depletion via unsafe investing.

    Have you been talking to Larry Summers?

  • ||

    See, this is why government needs to take over. While rich people may have less wealth during economic downtimes (caused by their inveterate greed and lust to own everything), they still have much more than they need. The administration should exercise its eminent domain powers and seize all of the excess wealth in the U.S., which, after all, is a blight on our nation's soul. The compensation for this mass taking will be to improve the character of the (formerly) rich.

    Did I leave anything out?

  • ||

    Rich people only have wealth through luck or malfeasance and/or we, the body-socialist, allow them to make money so it really belongs to us.

  • ||

    Luck? How dare you! The only "luck" some of the robber-barons have is to have inherited wealth stolen by their evil-doing parents or other ancestors. It's all malfeasance in other words.

    I await the day when are individuality is replaced by one giant server brain, pre-programmed to ensure perfect equality.

  • ||

    Interesting. I seem to lose all grammatical ability when playing "socialist." I must be offending my subconscious.

  • ||

    The Perfected Socialist Man needs not grammar this speak of you.

  • ||

    You're right, of course. Grammar is merely bourgeois oppression in another form. Did you know that most workers cannot afford commas?

  • ||

    Doe this mean we can throw off our parenthesis of oppression?

    The Punctuation Wars are coming. Cry bracket! And let loose the dogs of umlaut!

  • ||

    Hey, now, umlauts are Nazi.

  • ||

    "If only we'd listened to that boy, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven."

  • Suki||

    The Perfected Socialist Man needs not grammar this speak of you.

    Au contraire, The Perfect Socialist spells and grammars perfectly at all times so that they can have one thing that smacks not of hypocrisy.

    Sprinkle French wording liberally.

  • ||

    You left out the old "in all the cool countries the government plunders 80% of the undeserved wealth."

    Don't we all want to be like the cool countries?

  • ||

    That goes without saying.

  • ||

    Nonprofits are people, too? Oh, please. I suppose next you're going to argue they deserve First Amendment protection as well. Bah! Flim-shaw!

  • Alan Vanneman||

    I'm glad, I guess, that I don't work at Harper's, but any event that makes Barbara Ehrenreich "pretty anxious" can't be all bad.

  • ||

    "The business side is run like it's Esquire in 1968, and the edit side is run like it's Amnesty International in 1987," said one editorial staff member.

    Does anyone other than Matt know what this means?

  • Suki||

    Maybe Ron Bailey? Isn't he the only person older than Matt around here?

  • Dwight Brown||

    "Worse, Harper’s seemed irrelevant — 'the mainstream media is ignoring it to death,' he said — according to people who were at the meeting."

    This is the magazine that devoted a lengthy cover story to bashing the Frugal Gourment, yes?

  • Suki||

    or just continuing to read, watch, comment, complain, and forward. Thanks!

    I didn't think I complained at all? I challenge anybody to find one comment of mine complaining about reason. Just one! I dare you!

  • lunchstealer||

    What? This is a nonprofit? That's it! I'm cancelling my subscription!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement