Armageddon Question

Great journalism is no longer profitable.

by Bruce Schimmel

I've never received a public blessing before. Much less one that extended to my children (of whose existence I'm unaware).

But I got a hearty benediction from Chris Satullo, who recently moderated a panel at WHYY on the Future of News Media in Philadelphia. Satullo blessed me for my response to the Armageddon question: What should happen if Philly's leading dailies die? (Sharing the panel were Daily News' Sandra Shea, Matt Golas of planphilly.com and Joey Sweeney of philebrity.com.)

As creditors of the bankrupt Inquirer and Daily News sharpen their knives, our dailies could be decimated. Should that happen — as I told the audience of some 125 from Young Involved Philadelphia — the government and foundations should jump in and pump up public media. So Satullo — formerly of the Inky, now at WHYY — was thrilled by the idea of a big bailout of public media. But, he sighed, that isn't likely.

Last year, said Satullo, an unnamed foundation (probably Pew, who declined official comment) estimated it would take $3 million to $4 million a year for WHYY to run a basic, local news Web service. As such, it was financially unsustainable.

When Satullo asked, "Who's going to pay for us [journalists]?" I was tempted to suggest that his boss, Bill Marrazzo, whose yearly compensation tops $750,000, could spare some change. But even if Marrazzo did the right thing, journalism for profit is essentially unsustainable. Why would anyone pay for journalism when they can get the news for free?

Let me explain: Journalism is the process that produces news. And it costs good money to do good journalism, to uncover truth and hold the powerful accountable.

Before digital media, newspapers could turn a profit on a piece of journalism, in that small space of time between its publication and its absorption as news. But today, the transition from profitable journalism to unprofitable news is nearly instantaneous.

Germany is considering "copyrighting" journalism. But like information, journalism "wants" to be free. If journalism is, as it's said, history written in a hurry, can you really sequester history?

Maybe, at least for a little time, publishers like Rupert Murdock and Brian Tierney hope, who are considering putting their journalism behind a pay-to-view wall. My prediction on paid news is it ain't gonna work. That horse has already left the barn.

Journalism can be saved only if it's treated like a public necessity, like clean air and public parks. America should do what works in Britain — which funds the BBC with a tax on every television set. It should be independent, and not subject to political whim.

It will be a hard sell, for sure. A new Pew survey pegs the public's view of news outlets at an all-time low. But in the same survey, almost three-quarters also said that closing a local newspaper would be an important loss. Even among the file-sharing generation — 18 to 29 — some 39 percent cited newspapers as a major source of local news. And newspapers, as everyone knows, are the foundation for other kinds of media.

There's clearly a yearning even among the young for quality journalism. Now we just need to accept that quality journalism is a public necessity that should be paid for by the public.

Weigh in at citypaper.net/canon or schimmel.com.