The Philadelphia Inquirer shut down its nearly three-year-old community news and engagement desk last week as part of a reduction of newsroom staffing, which included eight buyouts.
The desk was launched with much fanfare following an extensive listening tour and planning process, with a commitment to better serve traditionally underserved communities. It operated independently of the newsroom, with its own staff of six.
Philadelphia’s population is about 40% African American and 16% Hispanic. In addition to these groups, the desk aimed to enhance coverage of LGBTQ+ and disabled communities.
Publisher and CEO Lisa Hughes declined several requests for an interview regarding the decision, which was first reported by Axios on Friday. In a note to staff that afternoon, she did not mention the community desk but described the moves as necessary savings. She added that the Inquirer “will continue to identify areas where we can reasonably and responsibly make cuts so we can fulfill our core mission.”
That suggests that the desk’s work was deemed less essential than other coverage. Several angry commentaries from current and past newsroom staff picked up on the theme.
Sabrina Vourvoulias, who led the unit before being transferred to the opinion section last summer, wrote on LinkedIn:
I am deeply saddened and disappointed by the choice. The desk was, after all, an initiative built through many hours of discussion with community members from across Philadelphia about how the Inquirer could more fully engage with those who felt abandoned or ignored or disenfranchised or mischaracterized during its 196 years of publication. …
I can’t help thinking that the Inquirer has chosen the worst possible moment to deplatform the news desk wholly dedicated to reaching out to and securing the stories of those who will be most impacted. I don’t pretend to be a business person with 20,000 sensible reasons for why this had to happen now; I’m just a storyteller (and the editor of other storytellers) who is mourning what will be lost.
Similarly, the Inquirer’s NewsGuild chapter headlined its reaction “Loss of Confidence,” protesting that the buyout process was arbitrary and poorly explained. The union also questioned the company’s continuing commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion goals, despite reassurances.
Jesenia De Moya Correa, who worked on the planning phase, also wrote on LinkedIn: “Besides frustration, the elimination of the Communities and Engagement desk makes me feel devastated and extremely challenged. The talent that has been kept and let go from this team makes it evident that there are people of certain class, perspectives and race that will continue to be systemically erased or excluded from journalism, and others who will benefit.”
The desk was conceived at the high tide of the Black Lives Matter movement and corporate DEI action following George Floyd’s murder. It was also specifically intended as a remedial response for the Inquirer after a controversial headline, “Buildings Matter, Too,” which was condemned by outraged newsroom staff as insensitive, if not outright racist.
Andrea Wenzel, an associate professor at Temple University who wrote a book on antiracism, did background research that led to the desk and wrote about it for Poynter. She and her team found, among other things, that 75% of the news staff was white, even though less than half of the city’s population is white.
She emailed me that the research group hoped that the Inquirer would establish a full-fledged advisory council, bringing accountability and transparency to the whole newsroom. They were told that the desk was a necessary first step and that it might “evolve” to take on a bigger role.
Even so, she wrote, “The closure of the Communities and Engagement Desk signals not only a loss of talented journalists, many journalists of color, but also a backsliding on the Inquirer’s commitments to creating a more equitable and engaged news organization.”
Other nonprofit startups and legacy outlets have similarly sought to plug traditional shortfalls in news coverage of portions of their communities. For the Inquirer, preparations included many “listening” meetings to determine what those potential readers wanted to see covered.
Once launched, the Inquirer’s communities and engagement desk included what a company website calls Soapbox salons — regular meetings with 35 community members to critique and advise on coverage.
Among the questions I had hoped to ask Hughes was whether management thought there were particular flaws in the community desk structure and what parts of its mission and work plan have been moved elsewhere.
Also, as Vourvoulias’ comment alludes to, the timing coincides with a broad corporate retreat from DEI, which is under an all-out attack by the Trump administration. Is there a connection?
The Inquirer is owned by the nonprofit Lenfest Institute. I emailed Lenfest executive director and CEO Jim Friedlich for comment, but he replied that on matters like this, the Inquirer operates independently and said he did not think it appropriate to comment.
With news of the desk’s closing just starting to spread, I’m reluctant to comment on national implications. But I would expect ripples. Doing better by underserved communities is a stated priority of other legacy organizations and a founding principle for many digital startups, including Houston Landing and Signal Ohio.
Back in the day, nascent online operations were typically separated from the main newsroom (The Washington Post’s was across the Potomac River). It became apparent that it was not a good idea, and maybe a retrospective on the Inquirer’s desk would conclude the same.
I’ll update this column with any additional comments I receive.
Comments