And how? There are no easy answers to these complicated questions…
This changing definition of news can also be connected to the “uberization” of news. Uberization refers to services offered directly and on‐demand through a website or mobile‐app, often (but not always) with the service being provided by an individual or third party who is contracted by the website or app but is not an employee. Some perspectives on these strange times regarding the uberization of news:
We have a lodging system called Airbnb. It doesn't own any actual hotels.
There's a food delivery service called Foodora. It doesn't own any restaurants.
There's a video service called YouTube. It doesn't own movie studios or TV networks. (Like other streaming services, it is also generating original content from freelance producers).
There's a ride‐hailing service called Uber (where the term “uberization” comes from). It doesn't own any cars.
In this so‐called gig economy, where companies are getting rid of costly elements such as staff employees (who receive benefits) and replacing them with freelancers (who receive fewer or no benefits), journalism may also be affected by the increased digitization of information and media institutions. The industries mentioned above – and many others – have been transformed by digital innovation. While customers have benefited from the ease, cost‐effectiveness, and simplicity of digital technology, there is also a powerful downside: wages for workers in affected industries have plummeted, working conditions are often worse, and company morale, in many instances, is dropping and has not yet hit rock bottom.
At the same time, profit margins for owners in many industries have never been greater.
Journalism is also being uberized. There is less reliance on staff reporting and more reliance on content spread by freelancers and platforms such as Facebook and Twitter, resulting in less so‐called enterprise reporting where journalists are given the time and the resources to generate original journalism. As a result, newspapers have closed or been downsized, and broadcasters have cut their more expensive (and usually more labor‐intensive) content. In the rush to return to the once rich profit margins of the early 2000s, media organizations are being urged by their shareholders to dispense with expensive ventures like international reporting. Instead, news consultants are hired to tell their news clients that weather, traffic, and crime (WTC) are what most audiences prefer.
Not coincidentally, WTC also happens to be the cheapest and most readily available content. And all three bits of low‐hanging journalistic fruit happen to originate from government sources. So the issue of how independent journalism is remains in question.
The Dangers of “Clickbait”
Many media organizations, especially broadcasters, try to entice their audiences through “clickbait.” Clickbait is a link or headline that catches the eye by promising interesting content, but it then fails to deliver. According to TechCrunch, the purpose of clickbait is to generate page views because “[m]ost sites use traffic numbers like page views or unique visitors to bill advertisers and measure their general success” (Escher and Ha, 2016).
Clickbait works simply because it does attract eyeballs. The assumption seems to be that audiences will stay for the serious content after gorging on the fluff. Many media websites seem to be particularly smitten with clickbait, even though their journalists complain, and the public occasionally resents this waste of the journalistic efforts and reputation.
But it can earn money for a media company, so the public seems willing to tolerate it.
No technological change can ever be reversed. Occasionally, it can be slowed, even questioned. Can the effects of the digital culture be made to work on behalf of the culture, rather than against it? How can the better aspects of traditional journalism be made to fit inside the technological inventions that are being produced constantly? If journalism is to survive, then it has to resist digital culture's worst qualities (listicles, cat videos, celebrity sightings, and porn) in order to let digital culture offer what it can best provide.
From Media Trust to Media Mistrust
The election of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States has heightened the sense of crisis in journalism. Even as some media organizations – both legacy and independent – have given citizens some of the best reporting in years, the economic threat to journalism is now coupled with the attacks – both physical and verbal – on journalists in America and elsewhere.
Trump's election changed journalism in other ways, as well. For many media organizations in America, especially, the gloves are off. The assumption that fact‐based journalism is professionally neutral has been stripped away. Instead of the traditional “stenographic” approach to reporting – or reporting basic facts without much contextualization – we are now seeing the rise of opinion‐based reporting – or reporting that is, in the tradition of the talk radio that emerged in the 1980s, highly editorialized and confrontational – instead. This form of journalism, when combined with a new populist quality (some of the British press has always acted as an agent of popular sentiment), fueled by the Internet, has resulted in a revolt against what some components who rail against “fake news” call the liberal media elites.
Opinion journalism has an additional advantage: it is less costly to produce. Talk radio and cable TV thrived in this atmosphere and continue to do so.
This has been building for many years, as media organizations – both print and broadcast – have discovered that having point‐of‐view journalists in the studio and columnists – both types of reporters who independently gather news and who also share their perspective and agenda – is less expensive than a news bureau – a centralized office where a news organization gathers and distributes all of its news. Investigative reporting units inside news organizations have been stripped down or abandoned completely and replaced by mills for more popular content. News organizations, driven more by delivering dividends to shareholders, worry about lawsuits and damage to reputation.
Complicit in this downgrading of reportage has been the eager collusion of news consultants who have pushed the quality of journalism into a more tabloid and down‐market phase. These consultants, also known as “news doctors,” became a ubiquitous presence inside news organizations. Brought in to find ways to improve efficiencies and maximize audience numbers, they often found themselves at loggerheads with an entrenched newsroom culture that opposed the increasing influence of digital technologies.
Many legacy news organizations now feel that circumstances, along with the public sensibility, force them to provide “journalism with an edge.” Old ways of journalism are being rapidly changed and even abandoned.
“Discard the ossified practices of objectivity…”
Pinar Gurleyen and Robert Hackett, two Canadian academics, make a strong argument that journalism needs to “discard some of the ossified practices of objectivity that stifle political understanding and engagement…” (2016, p. 51). In other words, journalism needs to have a viewpoint and a purpose. This proposal is appealing yet fraught with unintended consequences, including the replacement of fact‐based reporting with more opinion journalism. While there is a place for considered opinion, the risk remains that more opinion and less evidence‐based reporting would not serve the information needs of citizens who still need reliable information more than ever, especially at the local level. More opinion journalism can allow for the intrusion of advocacy and “fake news” into the media landscape.
Ethical Dilemma #2: Should Journalists Pay for News?
You are interviewing a person who has an amazing story to tell about surviving on the mean streets of your town. He admits he has a drug addiction, but he also has identified a beat cop who has brutalized him, even as the cop obtained drugs