I have a new business model for newspapers. Publish provocative, but premature obituaries of the super rich – and then explain how they can redeem themselves by leaving their badly-gotten billions to – yes – a newspaper.

I call it the Nobel strategy, after the inventor of dynamite. When Alfred Nobel‘s brother, an oil magnate, died in France, local papers confused the two men and instead published obituaries of Alfred – “Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding ways to kill more people faster than ever before, died yesterday.”

The obituaries made Nobel re-evaluate his legacy and the role of his kronor (which might otherwise have gone in things like death duties to pay for education, etc. – just saying!).

But for newspapers there is a slight flaw in the strategy. Despite the obvious evidence of journalistic fallibility, Nobel chose to posthumously reward scientists, novelists and peace-makers, rather than editors.

Like you – and Alfred Nobel – I can think of many more worthy uses for philanthropy than sustaining newspapers. But that hasn’t stopped a blogospheric splurge [wrap here] on the subject.

The only lesson I would draw from the whole sorry saga, is that when an endowment manager suggests endowing newspapers in the New York Times it attracts more attention than when a philanthropy theorist (yes – shock – they exist!) suggests it in the Financial Times.

In the meantime, if any Swedish arms billionaires are reading. Start a news organization. Don’t bail one out.