Journalism’s Future in Five Steps?
There’s an old saying — a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture of “picture-takers” is that. It is the headline image for a report by the Reuters Institute titled “More Important But Less Robust.” It purports to be analysis of the five things we should know about the ‘future of journalism.’
The report does contain some interesting and semi-insightful analyses of the trends and troubles, the ups and downs, the challenges and opportunities facing journalists. I will do a brief summary and my own semi-analysis of the report. Let me start though by suggesting you look at that picture — again. What does it say to you?
To me it pretty well sums up the situation facing today’s journalists as well as anything I, or the Reuters Institute, could write. This is not a diatribe disparaging what they’re doing. Anybody who has worked in the business long enough has experienced this situation. We had a number of expressions for it, all of which are pretty well unacceptable in today’s cultural and societal environment, and for good reason. They were though unfortunately accurate.
So, let’s look at the five issues identified by the Reuters report. Let me insert a disclaimer here. The report looks at journalism issues from more of a worldwide, global perspective. It is some consolation, although not much, that many of the issues we face in America are issues journalists in other countries are wrestling with as well.
First, we have moved from a world where media organisations were gatekeepers to a world where media still create the news agenda, but platform companies control access to audiences.
This is THE key point — IMHO. Particularly in the U.S., and in Washington, D.C., the discussion agenda is being set by the politicians and journalists in the nation’s capital. Presumably this is probably true in other countries as well. The difference is that while the traditional, mainstream media is trying to hold on to the access code to the gate, the platform companies are building different gates. Consider this factoid, one in every four persons in the world is on Facebook (2 Billion out of a world population of 7.5 Billion.)
Second, this move to digital media generally does not generate filter bubbles. Instead, automated serendipity and incidental exposure drive people to more and more diverse sources of information.
This can be interpreted in a number of ways. It can be either ‘good news’ or ‘bad news’ for journalists and in a way the public. Having read the full report, I am still not clear which one applies. Not having filter bubbles that separate misinformation and disinformation from real information is a problem. Having people go to more diverse sources of information should be a good thing IF it results in diverse points of views.
Third, journalism is often losing the battle for people’s attention and, in some countries, for the public’s trust.
In this metadata world there are a lot of sources of information competing for people’s attention, but that’s only part of the story. The other part is that the “battlefield” in which journalists find themselves include ‘combatants’ like Swedish comedian/ video game player PewDewPie, who has the top site on YouTube with 82 Million subscribers and Colombian singer/ songwriter Shakira, with 101 Million likes on Facebook. Add to the equation that in the polarized political, and cultural environment of today, ‘trust’ has become a precious commodity. Those ‘some countries’ include, and maybe led by, the United States.
Several surveys show Democrats and Republicans are at polar ends of the universe when it comes to the news media. Research by Gallup shows three out of four Democrats (76%) trust the media while only one in five Republicans (21%) do. A survey by Pew Research shows that four out of five Democrats (82%) believe in the news media’s ‘watchdog’ role but less than half that number of Republicans (38%) believe that.
Fourth, the business models that fund news are challenged, weakening professional journalism and leaving news media more vulnerable to commercial and political pressures.
There is nothing I can add to this that you don’t already know. As this article is being published, Verizon and Gannett announced plans to lay off more than 1,000 people. That’s even though Verizon which owns HuffPost, Yahoo and AOL reaped more than $4 Billion in government funded tax breaks last year. Gannett meanwhile is being threatened with even more commercial pressure because of a takeover bid by Digital First Media, which specializes in “distressed properties.” And political pressures? That’s defined by one word — Sinclair which forced all its news operations to run a questionable editorial.
Fifth, news is more diverse than ever, and the best journalism in many cases better than ever, taking on everyone from the most powerful politicians to the biggest private companies.
Here is the quote that stands out from the final point of the report: “the best journalism today is better than ever — more accessible, more timely, more informative, more interactive, more engaged with its audience.”
Is it? I’m not so sure it is. There is no doubt some good, even great, journalism being produced today. But… But… But… is it better than ever?
