Things are looking bleak for the remaining publicly held content websites. San Francisco-based Salon's stock is trading for 43 cents. The grandly titled Salon Media Group is valued at a not-so-grand $6 million. Investors value financial news site theStreet.com, which had $58.5 million in the bank at the end of last quarter, at just $33 million.

Confronted with declining online advertising and shuttered capital markets, these two publications -- to my mind, the two best stand-alone publications on the web -- are straining mightily to reach profitability and boost their stock price to the low single digits. TheStreet.com has developed new investor-oriented bells and whistles -- portfolio trackers! James Cramer e-mail alerts! -- while Salon has launched a wire service, and slashed staff sharply.

As a happily paying subscriber to both publications, and an occasional contributor to theStreet.com, I guess I should applaud these efforts. But I can't. They probably don't have a Webvan's prayer in Manhattan of working. And they detract from the sites' original mission -- providing compelling journalism for sophisticated audiences.

But I do have an idea that will ensure the survival of these impressive journalistic enterprises.

First, these sites must stop thinking of themselves as media conglomerates or mass-circulation publications. Salon Media Group will never be Conde Nast. And theStreet.com is no Fortune. Instead, these publications bear a far greater resemblance to a group of publications known as Little Magazines -- and should start to think like them.

Little Magazines are those great, largely unprofitable, modest-circulation periodicals that hold a hallowed place in American journalistic and intellectual life. I'm talking about The New Republic, National Review, Harper's Magazine, Dissent, The Weekly Standard, Washington Monthly, Commentary, The American Prospect, and online publications like Slate.

Little Magazines tend to have a distinct political or cultural worldview and mission. And because they seek class instead of mass, they wield influence far beyond their circulation figures. So do these two. TheStreet.com, with its relentless efforts to break down myths and build up truth-telling on Wall Street, has changed the tone of business coverage. It has scored major scoops, and delivered exceptional value to its subscribers, especially in the form of broader investor education. Salon's hard-hitting left-of-center political and business coverage underscores its broader -- and truly rare -- mission to speak truth to power. And the edgy cultural writing is far more interesting than that found in establishment organs like The New York Times.

Like Little Magazines, these two struggling outfits are run by inspirational leaders/guiding spirits -- David Talbot at Salon and James Cramer at theStreet.com. They both feature sharp, opinionated high-profile journalists who also write for other high-profile publications: syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington and New York Observer editor Joe Conason feature prominently in Salon; theStreet.com's Herb Greenberg writes columns for Fortune, while James Cramer writes for New York Magazine, and Ben Stein is a well-known multi-media personality.

Little magazines have also proven to be tremendous launching pads for young talent. The New Republic, Washington Monthly, and Weekly Standard have incubated the careers of many of today's top reporters and writers. Just so, Alex Berenson, the crackerjack New York Times business reporter, is one of the more prominent young alumnae of theStreet.com. Salon has propelled youngish writers like political commentator Jake Tapper (now seen on CNN) and book critic Laura Miller into the broader media world.

In the end, however, Little Magazines are more like clubs than businesses. The members -- contributors and subscribers -- are generally like-minded and interested in the worldview espoused by the magazine. They pay dues to join. And there is a small group of advertisers -- not many, but some -- that is eager to reach such committed, well-educated, generally affluent audiences. There's one other crucial similarity between my on-line favorites and Little Magazines: as businesses, they are money-losing propositions. They can't print money, but they try to publish great, impactful journalism. Sometimes they do -- at least enough to keep us reading.

There are three ways that Little Magazines survive, on-line and offline. The first is to become part of a deep-pocketed corporate conglomerate -- Slate is owned by Microsoft, and The Weekly Standard is part of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. But given that newspaper and media companies are cutting back on their own web operations, it is unlikely any would be interested in Salon or theStreet.com.

A second means is to be owned by a foundation or a charity. Harper's Magazine, for example, is owned by a tax-exempt foundation. Commentary is published by the American Jewish Committee.

The third, and probably the best, means of survival is to be owned by an individual, or a group of individuals, who run the publication on a relative shoestring, as a borderline for-profit. That's how the Washington Monthly, New Republic, and National Review have survived these many decades. They don't make money for their owners, but neither do they bleed so much red ink that they bankrupt them. Occasionally, they can provide useful tax losses, but the rewards of owning a Little Magazine aren't financial. They're psychic and emotional: the prestige associated with running a high-brow publication, the pride in helping to launch journalistic careers, and the frisson derived from influencing public debate on important matters.

So here's my humble advice to the executives and boards of Salon.com and theStreet.com.

Forget about reverse stock splits, new revenue streams, and expensive executive talent. You've got great publications. It just turns out that being publicly held is perhaps the least optimal way for them to be organized.

Go private. This month. Use the remaining cash to buy out the remaining public shareholders. Offer a discount to the current low price. The non-insider shareholders might yelp. But they'll thank you in the long run. The shareholders of Webvan or E-Toys probably now wish somebody had done the same before their stocks became utterly worthless.

Operating as a private concern will free up all the energy you spend worrying about underwater stock options, as well as precious financial resources. Little Magazines don't advertise on television, put up travelling columnists in fancy hotels, or pay salaries for investor relations and public relations staff. Business development executives? At Little Magazines, they're called editors.

TheStreet.com has some logical saviors. Martin Peretz, one of the co-founders, has run The New Republic as a prototypical Little Magazine for nearly 30 years. And former hedge-fund manager James Cramer, who already owns about 10 percent of the stock, could probably afford to help support the publication.

Salon.com also has some logical saviors. Investment banker Bill Hambrecht recently led a $2.5 million round of investment in the company, and might be pressed to buy the rest. And on the East Coast, there are plenty of liberal-leaning financiers who like to be in and around the media world. Hello, George Soros? You can own the whole thing for the price of a Manhattan townhouse.

Going private means editors and writers will have to give up on the dream of stock option millions. But people don't work at Little Magazines for the money. My first job in journalism was as a reporter/researcher at The New Republic in 1989. It paid $200 a week, and offered no benefits. It was a great job. And there were dozens of applicants for each of those lowly positions.

Many journalists willingly take pay cuts to work at or contribute to Little Magazines. The same holds true for Salon and theStreet.com. I wrote for theStreet.com when it paid $500 for an article, and I'm still willing to write for it -- albeit a bit less enthusiastically -- now that it pays $200. Why? It's a great platform, and I'm in good company when I publish there. Many staffers at both Salon and theStreet.com already augment their income substantially with outside writing, television, and speaking gigs. So you won't get rich. So what. The game has changed. It's no longer "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" It's "Survivor."

The Internet boom created a moment in the late 1990s when all sorts of people aspired to profitable public ownership for their online creations. The bubble even lifted hopes, against all of history's advice, that serious journalism could make a buck. The stock market bear has mauled this hope.

For Salon and theStreet.com, going private and embracing their status as Little Magazines could be a way to make sure the next chapter these great publications write isn't Chapter 11.