In the last year, I’ve had a chance to participate in some groups that mix two different tribes: nonprofit and for-profit local news publishers. We certainly agree on a lot: the struggles we all have in local news, a deep belief in the importance of the work we do, the need for all of us to have a sustainable business model, the rising threats to press freedom.

I’m not referring to the biggest for-profit publishers — USA Today, Alden Capital, Chatham Asset Management — who all, to varying degrees are purely financially motivated and, as far as I can tell, don’t give a damn about the journalism or serving communities (there are certainly wonderful journalists at many of these newsrooms, but they’re terribly served by their owners).

But the split in perspective even with well-intentioned for-profit publishers is stark. Most nonprofit local news organizations make their content free in the belief that it’s important to serve all of the community, not just those who can afford a subscription. We also do it on the calculation that the visible commitment to news and information for the whole community can inspire greater voluntary giving from those who can afford it. Crucially, it’s a way to avoid the problem identified by Nik Usher in their book News for the Rich, White and Blue.

Most for-profit publishers impose paywalls of one kind or another. As a consequence, they are never considering reaching more than a fraction of the community. Too often, the people excluded from accessing the reporting are the ones that are most affected by decisions taken in city hall or the school board.

Non-profit local news organizations sometimes aim particularly at reaching the most vulnerable populations in their city. We often speak about our reporting being of, by, and for our communities, not just about them. In our own work at Cityside, we aim over time to get 5% of the adult population supporting our work financially in some way and over 40% accessing our reporting.

There’s a broader reason as well why the perspective gap matters for the future of our work. I suspect everyone reading Nieman Lab has looked at the maps from Northwestern’s State of Local News Project and wondered how on earth our industry can not just slow the deterioration of local news, but begin to fill in some of the many gaps on the map.

The harsh truth is that, taken in isolation, there is likely no viable economic model for decent news provision in economically struggling cities or rural areas. For-profit publishers have either already abandoned these places, or they will in the near future. I think the nonprofit perspective reaches a different conclusion. We look at those cities and rural counties and think: that’s our mission, right there.

But if there is no economic model, how will we make it work? I’m not counting on institutional philanthropy, although those charitable dollars can certainly help. Instead, I’m seeing more of what a Nieman Lab article called “multi-local” nonprofit newsrooms sprouting up around the country. Part of the motivation for that approach is that we can spread our infrastructure and resources (for example, expertise in membership, audience, product and fundraising) across a number of newsrooms. But we can also create a diverse portfolio of newsrooms where some thriving cities — or a strong statewide base — can effectively subsidize the much-needed work in a less well-resourced place. I don’t need every newsroom to pay its own way; I just need the greater whole to be sustainable.