The National Parks Traveler has been out front with its coverage of the National Park System, including the coral bleaching and the plight of Caneel Bay Resort at Virgin Island National Park/NPS file
Since the National Parks Traveler announced that this would be its final year in operation due to a lack of sustained funding, alarm has sounded from readers and listeners who depend on the news organization for its coverage of the National Park System and the National Park Service.
"Nothing is free,” one reader wrote about how we might be able to keep the lights on at the Traveler. "There is an operational cost to keeping the National Parks Traveler going. ... There is also a cost of shuttering the National Parks Traveler. Not only will we lose the fantastic content and coverage of OUR national parks, the national parks will lose one of its strongest advocates.
"The Traveler provides good, honest, advocacy for our national parks and speaks on behalf of all of us who love the parks, America's greatest idea. The Traveler brings together journalists, authors, Park Service employees, other non-profits, you, and me in an effort to speak with one voice on defending, preserving and improving our national parks and the national park experience,” they continued. "The cost of closing the National Parks Traveler is so much greater than the cost of operating it. Let's not let that happen.”
What is the cost of keeping the Traveler open?
It’s a fair question. The answer lies in the need to transition to a sustainable news organization that is more than one person. After managing both business and content as a one-man band since founding the Traveler in 2005, I hope to retire soon and pass on the Traveler. But that comes with a cost.
To sustain this vital journalism platform, we need steady funding, at a minimum, for:
- An executive director, editor-in-chief, managing editor, and development individual — with a combined salary of some $350,000 a year if we followed compensation guidelines of The Institute for Nonprofit News. Employment benefits would be an additional cost.
- IT costs and an updated website that will serve our readers. The Traveler is facing the need for a roughly $30,000 upgrade by the end of 2024.
- Payments to freelance journalists who provide much of the Traveler’s content but could be providing so much more to cover important stories with a realistic budget.
So, $400,000 actually is on the low side of sustainability. But $400,000 a year would bring a level of stability and ability to continue this important news service into the foreseeable future.
During Fiscal 2022-23, the Traveler brought in about $136,400 in revenue, so we’re at least $263,000 away from that $400,000 budget.
Since announcing in October that the Traveler would likely have to fold by the end of 2023, we’ve received nearly $14,000 in spontaneous donations, but matching funds and bonuses from the annual NewsMatch campaign that ends December 31 pushes the total closer to $43,550 as of today.
That’s really encouraging. But we can’t let up.
If we can raise $200,000 by the close of this fiscal year, (which ends June 30, 2024), we can make it to the end of 2024. We’ll incrementally set the goal of boosting the annual goal to $300,000 for 2025 and $400,000 for 2026, a reasonable progression.
So many people have told me personally, and left comments on the Traveler, about how important the news organization is. If you’ve made a donation commitment, we are extremely grateful. If not, are you willing to lose this unique coverage that is mostly overlooked by other media as journalism outlets continue to fall by the wayside?
Doug Leen, of Ranger Doug acclaim, calls the Traveler “The NPR of National Park news." If you agree, please donate before year-end to ensure continued coverage of the essential places you love.
Comments
KP: I do wish you the best of luck.
As stated before though, I sincerely believe that you're alienating many potential donors by not offering more balance. It's certainly your prerogative to do as you please, but I argue that it has a substantial downside.
Best of luck.
Would you explain what you mean by More Balance?
NP Traveler is certainly promoting park preservation. It's not necesarily pro National Park Service or pro Federal beaurocracy.. it sure showcases park problems/threats, and offers readers wonderful education. I like its balance, or lack thereof.
First of all, I apologize for referring to Kurt as "KP". If inattentiveness were rewarded, I'd be rich.
To your question. On several occasions, I have commented on political references made in various posts, such as giving kudos to the present administration by name for efforts to fund NPS, while the previous administration was not recognized for its funding of the NPS (GAOA). Other times I've commented on the many pertinent failures of the present sec'y of the Interior (DOI)--comments that never saw the light of day as they were censored. Many other times I've tried to respond to nasty or inaccurate responses from other readers to my posts, and those comments never saw the light of day, leaving readers confused as to my intent.
As I said, Kurt can run the site as he wishes, but the obvious bias against other informed views is bound to have alienated potential supporters of his efforts. If you like his approach, good for you and please support him--but be assured that you're not getting the full story or a more complete view. And I argue that fuller story would likely lead to a fuller budget.
just my views...
Comment moderation is one of the trickiest aspects of running a website, especially when there is only one or sometimes two people trying to tackle it. That is why many organizations have done away with any and all comments. They create too many headaches.
For 18 years now we have taken the approach that comments can provide salient insights to issues in the parks. We also believe that only through constructive comments can folks on different sides of an issue perhaps understand the other's viewpoint. Not necessarily agree with it, but understand it.
Sometimes comments get accidentally deleted, and once they're gone, they can't be brought back. And if the commenter didn't provide a contact email address, there's no way to reach out to ask that they repost their comment.
That said, we try our utmost to delete gratuitious comments on both sides of the political spectrum. And we have. We also strive to delete comments that are not germane to the post.
So while A. Johnson complains about a bias, she/he doesn't see all the comments that get deleted.
I don't think balance in the comments is the issue. It's the left leaning bias in the substantive content of many of the articles themselves that undoubtedly alienates many. Some articles are written by Kurt, most by contributors.
The sky is falling - we are all going to die of climate change is a tired trope at this point that most Americans see it for what it is - a power grab by the Left to raise taxes and provide a moral justification to dictate the lives of others. Just yesterday a WA State legislator proposed a bill to criminalize gas powered leaf blowers with the penalty of incarceration. It's a religion, and like every other religion, some become dangerous zealots.
That is not to say that many proponents actually believe the sky is falling. My impression is that Kurt and friends are true believers.
I am obvioudly concerned about the environment and our parks, and will continue to donate for the good of the NPS, despite my reasoned belief that the sky is NOT falling.
For what it's worth, I see no evidence of bias in the Traveler content. As far as the comments, there are views expressed across the political spectrum, some of which I agree with and others with which I definitely disagree. To me, this demonstrates fairness. Finally, with regard to climate change, I believe that the science is clear: it is real, it poses danger to the resources we all claim to value, and it is a threat to us all. We ignore it to our peril. If we care at all about future generations, and don't want them to curse our memory, we need to put ideology aside and trust the science.
I appreciate Kurt's response. Obviously I do not see all the comments that are deleted, but I l know which of mine were.
While I agree with Loui that the sky is not falling, and that too many lefties treat climate chnage as a religion (with its prophets, evangelists, predictions of the endtimes and doom, true believers, indulgences, absolutions, etc), I do recognize that the weather changes and dramticlaly.
As far as "settled science": any informed person, who has spent any amount of time studying the discovery, acquisition, and advancement of knowlege over the centuries knows that NOTHING in science is ever "settled", and never has been It's simple laziness to argue overwise. Science was not and is not about consensus; it's 100% about CONTINUOUS study and constant doubt. We need to trust the process called science, not scientists.
In any case, Kurt has moved me very close to supporting the cause.