Writing in the FT, Pablo Eisenberg provides a great example of fuzzy thinking on journalism. And also a lesson in how to write in circles.
For a decade, the print media have been the only effective mechanism for keeping non-profit organisations open and accountable. The outstanding investigative work of the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and many other papers has uncovered hundreds of foundations and charities guilty of inappropriate expenditure, corruption, self-dealing, conflicts of interest and excessive compensation.
This coverage has had impressive results: congressional hearings and legislative activity; more effective federal and state regulations; increased scrutiny by state attorneys-general; better auditing and enforcement procedures by the Internal Revenue Service; and more self-reform efforts by non-profit organisations.
Yet without continued media focus on the non-profit sector, charities and foundations are likely to revert to old habits. Scandals, inappropriate behaviour and excessive compensation are still a regrettable part of our non-profit world.
So what has driven newspapers away from such investigations, according to Eisenberg? Why the pursuit of profit.
Twenty years ago a newspaper was happy to make a profit of 10-15 per cent. Even though daily newspapers today earn between 10 and 20 per cent in pre-tax profits, that is no longer good enough for Wall Street and investors, who demand much more, no matter what the cost to journalistic integrity. Business interests have trumped the public interest.
Is there any hope for a resurgence of high-quality, mission-oriented journalism? Non-profit ownership of select daily newspapers could offer a promising new beginning, and philanthropy could make it happen.
I like it. Non-profit ownership as the solution for newspapers failing to provide investigative scrutiny of non-profits? A complete circle. (And have you noticed how things were always better twenty years ago? There must a twenty year rule: another post, another time)