Daniel Scarpinato Columnist

In his writings, the apostle Paul teaches us, "The love of money is the root of all evil." The phrase is now a common one in our 21st century language.

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission sought to challenge that old notion by announcing major changes in current media ownership regulations. The changes would have allowed corporations to buy up more outlets, opening the road for a more concentrated ownership of media.

The way the FCC saw things, money wasn't as bad as the apostle Paul thought it was. The media could still operate fairly and stay competitive if the corporations consolidated.

But most journalists didn't see it that way. In fact, the announcement opened a can of worms in the field, and not just among anti-business liberals.

Now, setting aside the details of what percentage of the media one company should own, this profit motive debate is not new in journalism. It has existed since Hearst and Pulitzer capitalized on the penny press: Does the media's profit motive conflict with or complement basic journalistic values?

While not without flaws, the profit motive allows the free press to survive and competition to thrive, and has led to a more professional and responsible industry ÷ a reality that often frustrates rank-and-file journalists.

See, most journalists see the trade as a calling, like the priesthood. As far as they're concerned, being a journalist is not just a career, but a way of life.

One should be willing to make sacrifices in one's personal and financial lives in order to provide a valuable service to society. In reality, many journalists are blue-collar workers who feel jaded about people, government and institutions.

Nevertheless, the stereotype shouldn't be taken too far. Journalists are good people and have a greater awareness of ethics today than ever before. The old notion of the journalist out to expose scandal with no sympathy to issues of emotional consequence is flawed.

Since journalists have been glamorized in film and television, from the hussle and bussle of the Daily Planet newsroom in the "Superman" films to the Manhattan Argus in "The Hudsucker Proxy," our pop-culture images are less than accurate.

Journalists take issue with the publicly traded companies that control their newsrooms, and not entirely without reason.

Outside the classroom, journalism is a profit-hungry business. There are more handcuffs on what journalists can do now than there were 20 or 30 years ago.

But if the reason journalists fear the corporatization of the media is that it means that the control of the media slips from their hands to those of the readers and viewers, then they need to rethink why they're in the business. Today, journalists who enter the trade will likely work for a major corporation, unless they build their career at the Tombstone Tumbleweed or Eloy Enterprise. Consumer control is a good thing.

Readers and viewers can now decide what news they want and how they want it. And, despite so much talk about consolidation in the media, consumers are offered more diversity of thought now than ever before.

Now, this is at odds with how some in the field might feel.

To them, the golden age of journalism has faded; an era of dumbing down the news is here.

Despite the fact that USA Today is a reflection of an American's desire ÷ direct, punchy, visually appealing news ÷ elitist journalists would say it has eroded traditional journalism.

While editor of the Wildcat last spring, I dealt with angry callers daily. In one case, when the paper ran a series of controversial ads, some readers suggested that capitalism had corrupted the paper's journalistic integrity.

To the contrary, the fact that the Wildcat is completely independent of student fees and state handouts validates its integrity.

If the Wildcat or any other paper became irrelevant to its readers, they would stop reading. And, in turn, the paper would fail to sell ads and cease to exist.

A strong profit motive can continue to strengthen journalism as long as the modern media remembers its mission and listens to its customers.

Daniel Scarpinato is a journalism and political science senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.