In a column for the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Bruce Trachtenberg and Grant Oliphant make a few suggestions about how foundations and the news media can both do a better job getting the media to cover the activities of private foundations. Get away from talking about individual grants and grant amounts; the story isn't the money itself, they argue, but what happens with it.

Good advice, I'd say. There is much naval gazing within the philanthrosphere about why the news media can't seem to find an interesting angle on private foundations other than malfeasance. Name your theory: Giving away money just isn't that interesting; foundations use language that only foundations understand; despite posting Web sites and publishing magazines and annual reports, foundations aren't really that interested in having a spotlight on them. There some legitimacy in each of these theories.

Trachtenberg, who runs the Communications Network, an association of communicators within private foundations, and Oliphant, a veep at the Heinz Endowment in Pittsburgh, get it especially right here:

When reporters cover the business world, they produce articles when new products or strategies are announced, when money is made or lost, and when companies grow or fail. And in between the coverage of those developments, enormous attention is paid to the types of businesses they are, what underlies the decisions companies make, and what they could do to become more successful.

That same approach should guide philanthropy coverage. Reporters should be encouraged to provide in-depth and analytic coverage about the underlying problems in society that foundations are trying to solve, the likely results of their investments, and follow-up coverage about what did or didn't happen.

I'd put about 80 percent of the blame for why private foundations don't receive more analytical news coverage at the feet of the private foundations themselves. Talk all you want about openness, community accountability, etc., foundations are notoriously reticent to reveal any more than what's absolutely necessary to ensure they're looked upon favorably. In a field that in and of itself is difficult to explain to the outside world, why should reporters go the extra mile if foundations don't return their calls?