Let’s bring $1 billion back to journalism

The news business is in trouble. This month, hundreds of the remaining journalists still employed by Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper chain, walked out to protest further cuts to local newsrooms. This follows sweeping layoffs at national news organizations since the beginning of 2023, including deep cuts at the likes of the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, BuzzFeed, News Corp, NPR, Vox, ABC News, NBC News, Vice Media, and many others. 

This is not a cycle that will end naturally; it’s time to consider what America will look like without functioning local news outlets and a severely hobbled national news ecosystem. And by “news” here, I don’t mean lifestyle or celebrity coverage, but real on-the-ground reporting about issues of concern to communities. U.S. newsroom employment fell 26% between 2008 and 2020, corresponding with a 77% drop in newspaper advertising revenue, according to the Pew Research Center. Already 70 million Americans live in so-called news deserts with no local news outlet. Many more have local news in name only, with newsrooms staffed with out-of-towners or so hollowed out that they can barely produce a local sports report, let alone hold public officials to account or play the essential role laid out by the framers in the First Amendment to the Constitution: informing the electorate in a free and democratic society.

While this environment bodes ill for what will surely be one of the most divisive presidential elections in our nation’s history—accelerated by the fact that we are now living through the post-truth era—the free press must play an even bigger role in reporting the truth than it previously did in order to keep the electorate informed. The press doesn’t always get it right but day after day, journalists are the essential fence menders of truth, assuring that the common understanding doesn’t become uncommon, and allowing society and the economy to function on a shared set of facts and expectations. Without them, more than our politics would descend into a Tower of Babel.

The flawed premise of brand safety

Advertising alone cannot fix this problem, but we can be part of the solution. In fact, I’m going to call it right here and issue a challenge to the ad community: Let’s bring $1 billion in ad revenue back to news and along the way, resurrect the notion of the triple bottom line: good for our customers, good for our shareholders, and good for humanity. This is a small fraction of the advertising revenue that has disappeared from news in the last 12 years, but would be an enormous boost to the remaining news industry—one that would help it to retain and recruit the kind of editorial talent capable of uncovering and disseminating the truth.

How do we do this? 

First, we need to discard some old and long-disproven ideas about advertising in hard news: namely, that it is somehow dangerous, unsafe, or unsuitable for brands. That myth took hold about a decade ago when brands started buying advertising through tech middlemen and wanted assurances that their ads would not appear adjacent to unsettling or graphic content. An industry grew up around the concept of “brand safety,” which functionally led to brands avoiding real news altogether through aggressive keyword blocking that filtered out vital coverage of government and social issues.

But the entire idea that news is somehow not safe for brands is based on a flawed premise: A study by the Internet Advertising Bureau in 2020 found that advertisers in professionally produced news earned a “trust halo” among consumers, even when the news itself is disconcerting. They were more likely to earn trust from advertising in serious or breaking news versus light or opinionated content. 

News audiences are more affluent and educated than those who read general digital media, and for the moment, they’re also cheaper to reach. After years of disinvestment in news, news audiences are a relative bargain compared to, say, streaming services or network TV. So there’s a lot of ad spending that simply needs to come back to news in order to drive traditional ROI. Frankly, that sustained disinvestment also means that for most marketers, news audiences also represent a significant unduplicated reach.

Journalism as ESG

Second, we need to start thinking about news as a public good; and that means classifying it as part of brand Environmental, Social, and Governance spending, or ESG. Call it ROR, or return on reputation. Journalism is an underpinning of our economy, our democracy, and our society itself. That alone should qualify it for a place in marketers’ ESG portfolios.

Brands spend billions each year in ESG advertising, supporting a litany of causes from diversity and DEI initiatives to green energy and sustainability to human rights and education. Since none of these worthy goals are possible without a free and functioning Fourth Estate (remember the climate deniers?), it becomes obvious where ESG should go next: into news journalism.

To make that happen, we’d need to convene a self-made authority, a group of say 12 advisors representing publishers, brands, and an association with a vested interest in protecting and growing American journalism. Back when I was running media for a major American bank and we wanted to add AIDS research and prevention to what we were already doing in climate, recidivism, and DEI initiatives, we did it in conjunction with the nonprofit RED. Once there’s an organization that can provide guidance, all it takes is commitment from brands and a pledge.

No one expects brands to just blindly turn on investment in news. The news ecosystem has changed since most brands left, largely out of an overabundance of caution, and coming back will require new governance—and a risk criteria that takes many factors into account, including varying levels of quality, original reporting, and bias. That’s why I joined Ad Fontes Media, which rates news sites, TV news programs, podcasts, and radio on reliability and bias to allow marketers to make those decisions fairly and at scale.

Once supporting America’s newsrooms becomes an ESG initiative, we could unleash it to the public and drive awareness through Ad Council advertising campaigns extolling the value of news. Imagine, for a minute, a couple on a park bench debating an issue of the day, their heads behind newspapers but with very recognizable voices. They lower their newspapers and we see George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kevin McCarthy.

Of course, today, we would replace the newspapers with tablets, smartphones, or Apple’s new AR headset. The idea, though, is the same; in the future, politicians could once again have a civil exchange of ideas. That might seem improbable given today’s hyperpolarized electorate, but with a greater abundance of high-quality journalism in circulation—made possible by stalwart marketers who step up to play their role—that electorate might begin to once again not only forgive, but actually encourage their representatives to entertain ideas from others who don’t share their ideology and recognize the need for a common good.

Like all great ESG causes, supporting news can and should bring brands, parties, and Americans back together and help American newsrooms keep doing the daily maintenance on truth, which is essential for our democracy. Time is running out, however. If marketers believe that truth and democracy are important enablers of their businesses, they need to take action now.

Lou Paskalis is chief strategy officer of Ad Fontes Media. He was previously president and COO of MMA Global and led global media at both Bank of America and American Express.