News for profit

In a twist of irony, the July 28 issue of the Wall Street Journal ran a piece by Harriet Rubin on "The Divine Comedy." I fantasized that this was a last-ditch effort of what is arguably the finest team of journalists in the country to make the Bancroft family think before selling out to the infamous Rupert Murdoch.

In this one short article, Dante was quoted not once but twice saying, "You were not made to live like brutes but to pursue virtue and knowledge." Rubin, author of "Dante in Love," said that "In hell … Dante sees that all crimes involve loving the wrong things: money, power, oneself or another's spouse."

Dante spoke and the Bancroft family sold, sold to a man who has spread sleaze like an oil slick over British journalism. However, the WSJ had pretty much maintained all along that the free market should be the final arbitrator in all decisions involving money. They were true to their editorial page.

The reasons people read newspapers or own newspapers vary widely, but the reasons people choose to eke out a living in print journalism rarely involve money because there is so little of it these days. At their best they make it possible for democracy to exist. Democracy is simply impossible unless citizens can find out what is going on. We certainly can't depend on our elected representatives to tell us the truth. We can't depend on the official representatives of any organization to tell us the truth without spin. But the newsgathering organizations have increasingly been seen more as profit-making engines than as defenders of democracy.

A paper has to make a profit unless it goes the non-profit route and is supported by an endowment, a scheme that is looking increasingly attractive, but how much profit is enough- And is the stock price the most important thing about a paper- Does money finally trump everything else- Dante, according to Rubin, believed that, "Leaders must use their skill and cleverness not for personal gain but to promote honor, to create a just state."
That doesn't describe Rupert Murdoch as far as I can tell, but "an offer you can't refuse" rarely involves an opportunity to promote honor or create a just state. Everyone knows when they hear that phrase that we're talking about a lot of money. And a lot of money was what Murdoch paid for the WSJ.

I am not against money; I like money. I like spending money and having money available. But what is to be its place in the order of things- Is it the servant or the boss-

The University of Virginia just awarded one of the prestigious dwellings on the lawn to their head fundraiser instead of to an accomplished scholar as has been the tradition dating back to Jefferson's concept of an "academical village." The fundraiser's contributions to U.Va. were cited as justification for the decision. This assumes monetary contributions trump all other contributions. Next thing I know they will be allowing their biggest donors to have it for a month's vacation. Why not let it out to anyone willing to contribute a million- That would be 52 million a year; show me a professor who can bring in that kind of cash. What did Jefferson know anyway; he died broke.

Rupert Murdoch has already said that The Wall Street Journal needs to produce more advertising revenue. I haven't heard a word about how it needs to produce a just state or promote honor, nothing about pursuit of virtue and knowledge.

Dante wrote his masterpiece while wandering around homeless in exile for nearly 20 years. Is he the kind of guy whose advice you want to listen to-  But that Rupert Murdoch! He knows how to get along in the world!  

Patricia Hunt is a Mary Baldwin College
chaplain and Staunton resident.