The Journalism Dilemma: How We Got Here
The following is a short history of journalism, outlining its major advancements and evolutions. This crash-course will serve to give the reader an adequate understanding of the field of journalism so that they can adequately assess the claims made in my other article about the subject. In short, this information is necessary to understand my arguments there.
Humble Beginnings
I am deeply interested in the progress and elevation of journalism, having spent my life in that profession, regarding it as a noble profession and one of unequaled importance for its influence upon the minds and morals of the people.- Joseph Pulitzer
Like many of modern conventions we enjoy today, journalism has its roots in Greco-Roman society. As an advanced civilization, Rome needed a method of informing its senators of important decisions when they couldn’t make it to senate meetings, because apparently Roman senators don’t know how to set an iPhone alarm. To keep these type-B senators informed, a document called the Acta Diurna was compiled- essentially, a meeting minutes of relevant information. The earliest known example of this practice is dated 59 BC.
It might not seem like it, but this early form of information-transferal exemplified a key principle of journalism- informing. Even though written scrolls had been around since the time of Moses, the Acta Diurna was the earliest known example of the written transferal of timely, relevant information to no specific person. Information was provided to help a person with responsibilities make decisions more knowledgably. This practice took a different form in the Middle Ages, where a town crier would go out to the square early in the morning to inform the people of the king’s decrees. Both practices see information being transmitted to a person or group, and there’s a distinct person whose job is to record and deliver the information.
“News,” writes the American Press Institute, “is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside… the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.”
Informing is perhaps the most basic of journalistic functions. For thousands of years, journalists have used their platform, whatever it may look like in that era, to give the public information critical to their well-being. Maybe there’s a war going on. Maybe a plague has swept the countryside. Maybe a president has been assassinated- if people need to know it, journalism would be there to say it.
The Journalism Revolution
After the early forms of journalism developed, time kept ticking, and the world continued to progress. The middle ages passed, the enlightenment spread, and in 1452 a nifty little invention changed the world: Charles Gutenberg’s printing press. The same machine that helped spread Protestantism and put a lot of scribes out of business also opened the door for a new type of journalism. This new form of information-transferal would forever change the political and international landscape, and nations and people would live or die at its demand. In 1785, the first privately-owned, truly national newspaper was born.
Up to this time, all forms of mass media had belonged to the one with the crown. Communication is power, and its wielder has the power to shape culture and kingdoms alike. If one can control the mind of the people, they can control their actions as well. It’s no coincidence that the first American newspaper, Publick Occurrences both Foreign and Domestick, was shut down by the colonial government after its first issue, where it ran a story about government corruption. With the availability of the printing press, any person with the capitol to buy their own unit suddenly possessed the mass communication power that previously only kings and Caesars had access to.
The Times stands as the first-ever privately owned national newspaper. It was started by a man named John Walter, and was headquartered in London. While gazettes produced by the government had existed before, this was the first time a civilian took on the role of primary information provider. The effect of this change is nothing short of revolutionary. As an independent paper, The Times was able to do something no other newspaper before it had done: successfully defy the government.
During the Crimean War, The Times sent reporter W.H. Russel to the battlefront to experience the realities of war. The reporter followed a war doctor and chronicled the man’s many patients as the doctor tried to make do with the equipment he had on hand. The reporter noticed the doctor was vastly underequipped, and decided to make doc the main character in his report. Apparently medicine has always made good entertainment.
When the story hit press, it started an uproar among citizens whose prior knowledge of war was limited to what the government or their friends told them. For the first time, an entire nation bought the same paper, read the same story, and felt the same outcry. When the public became privy to wartime conditions, rallies broke out and citizens demanded better treatment of their soldiers. Before long Britain passed policies to ensure their doctors were better equipped and staffed.
For the first time, the journalist kept the government in check.
This first occurrence exemplifies the second major function of journalism: exposing. By the 18th century, the ability for the common man to produce mass media meant journalism was no longer inherently propaganda. By the turn of the 19th century, journalists were free to scout, to ask questions, to be curious, because during the Crimean War, it worked. For the first time, the government didn’t need to be trusted, because now it was not the only voice out there.
Journalism is often called the fourth estate. As a wielder of mass communication, it has the immense responsibility of holding politicians to their word. Where there’s corruption, injustice, or foul play, there the journalist will be also. Just look at the Watergate scandal, depression-era journalism, and journalism’s part in spurring on the Revolutionary War to see the kind of impact it can have when exposing corruption. Ideologically, journalists are the soldiers of the information war, and they attack by exposing. Ideally, they fight for the common man.
The Internet Killed the Newspaper Star
Here’s where things get complicated.
Jump forward to the late 1900s. Journalism had taken on several new forms- radio, television, subscription-based doorstep newspapers- but for the large part it continued to function as it always had: informing the public and exposing injustice. It had adapted and looked somewhat different, sure, but for the most part, a middle-aged man would still grab a newspaper to read about the Cold War just how his ancestor would for the Civil War.
There was one significant development: because news agencies had grown large and the overall volume of news a consumer intakes increased, journalism began displaying a new function: analyzing. It might only take five minutes to explain how the princess of the UK died in a car crash, but the viewer will spend even longer with the news agency if they analyze what exactly the event means to the larger political context. Similarly, if a politician wants to pass a new immigration law, a journalist wouldn’t simply report it- he’d explain it, too. This was not a bad thing, and for a long time all was well and good in the world of journalism.
Then the internet happened.
Just like every other industry, the internet shook journalism to its very core. It took a bit, but by the year 2000 news organizations began hosting their content online- and increasingly, for free. Some news agencies tried charging consumers for an online subscription to their articles, but skeptics had a hard time paying for something they couldn’t hold in their hands.
The internet directly caused the loss of significant amounts of newspaper profit. When websites such as eBay and Craigslist became prominent, newspapers suddenly lost a huge stream of revenue, as the classifieds section became obsolete. Between the years 2000 and 2012, revenue from classifieds dropped by 75%, pulling a huge portion of revenue out from under agencies feet. This, combined with dropping subscription numbers, resulted in at least a 40% drop in total revenue from 2000 to 2012.
Tom Rosenstiel has great TED Talk about the topic, even if his analysis is very different than mine. Give it a listen if you like great presentations:[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuBE_dP900Y]
This drop in revenue, as well as the migration to primarily-online news for many publications, has changed the landscape of journalism immensely. The change has been so significant I would even be so bold as to claim that if journalism was a concept born in the internet age, it would look nothing like it does today. Instead, the journalism of yesterday tried to adapt to today’s world, and the result is the mess we swim in today.
In order to make up for the loss in revenue when classifieds became obsolete, news agencies turned to professional advertisers to keep the lights on. If more people were viewing individual articles online rather than subscribing to full newspapers, agencies would adapt to make money from advertisements there. Currently, a fourth of all advertising revenue comes from digital- a statistic that was almost 10% less five years ago. It’s easy to see the change:
And I haven’t even mentioned social media yet.
Another product of the internet age, social media changed the news industry just as much as the internet did. Twitter and Facebook are currently two of the biggest news providers, and neither of them even writes stories- with these sites, the stories are written by the subjects. For the first time in history, no middle man is required. Donald Trump can type 140 characters and have a message out to all of the citizens he works for in less than 30 seconds. This change in news delivery is nothing short of revolutionary. No longer must a person wait to read something in the paper, wait to watch something on TV, or hear about it on their drive to work. With social media, the internet’s policy of instant gratification translates to a philosophy of instant information.
Who needs to read a news story about the Cubs winning when you can read the team’s tweets, or tap a friend’s Facebook to see their photos of the event, or even watch a person broadcast an event live from their phone? In the internet age, the first two primary functions of journalism become obsolete because the world is the town square, and everyone’s a crier. Rarely does the journalist of today tell the consumer something they don’t know.
Instead, the journalism of today specializes in that final function of journalism: analysis. This is where the real change in the content of our news has changed. Since news agencies cannot make money the way they used to, and indeed can’t even inform the way they used to, news agencies are forced to become echoing caves. Essentially, when a piece of news breaks, they’re called to analyze it with hours upon hours of conversation and conclusions. Furthermore, they must necessarily morph to reflect the views of their audience- because if their viewers don’t like what they’re hearing, it’s just as easy to listen to someone else.
Journalism, then, has become a spineless force for pandering analysis, an echo chamber of rhetoric, a mirror for the audience. It does not serve to make people uncomfortable with the truth, but serves to reinforce their prejudice. Due to advancing technology, journalism has not adapted to the current world healthily, instead choosing the lazy road of not truly saying anything that matters.
Read Part II to find out how we can save it.