Where Is The Future Of Journalism?

In the post-truth era, the wide-ranging access to media and Internet, as well as the overwhelming amount of mis- and dis-information, have contributed to the fact that journalism has gradually become one of the most untrusted professions in the world. A survey conducted by Social Research Institute Ipsos MORI in 2017 suggests that in the trust level ranking for an array of occupations with social significance, journalists were ranked among the bottom four.

The decline of journalism is attracting scholars’ attention as well. On the evening of November 21st, Adrian Hadland, Head of Communications, Media and Culture at University of Stirling, gave a lecture on the “The Future of Journalism and Democracy” in his inaugural ceremony, which introduced his views on prospects of journalism based on the current state of the democratic societies, and provided sincere suggestions for the next generation of journalists.

What role does journalism play in the current framework of media and democracy? In the digital age, what changes will face the news industry? How do these changes affect democratic nations? In this article we will discuss them in detail.

Idealism | The Role of Journalism

For a long time, in the political practice of Western democracies, there has been a deep co-dependence between journalism and democracy. Professor Hadland mentioned multiple times the concepts of “The Forth Estate” and “Watchdog” in the Journalism Studies lectures this semester, which specially stressed the status of the news media in Western society and its importance to an informed and healthy society, shaping a healthy state.

When talking about the “The Fourth Estate”, it is generally considered that the media, with its function to keep the powerful to account, is the fourth power in addition to the traditional state powers, executive, legislative and judicial. But in fact, at its original source, “The Forth Estate” stems from the Western concept of the three estates of the realm, which was used by Edmund Burke in a parliamentary debate in 1787. He said, “‘Balance of Powers’ – three estates of Parliament to balance each-other: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons.”

In 1841, Thomas Carlyle wrote in his book, “On Heroes and Hero Worship”: “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important by far than they all.” He stressed the importance of the “Forth Estate”, proposing that the news media, as an independent part of secular power, to supervise the state machine.

In addition, the news media is also known as the “Watchdog” in Western countries. New media has been acting as a bridge that connects the public and the state. By delivering real and effective information to the public through reports, news media has helped the public understand the problem, and effectively supervises the state apparatus.

Digitisation | The Advantages and Disadvantages of News Industry in the Future

When the trend of digitisation of news becomes irreversible, can the news continue to function effectively as “the Fourth Estate” to balance administrative, judicial and legislative powers?

Newspaper advertising revenues are declining. The circulation of publications – reducing, which increasingly leads to the suspension of the newspaper as a medium. In contrary to the depression in the newspaper industry, the Internet news field is booming, ranging from news websites to apps and social media platforms, which attracts more and more paper media to move their content online. Take the US newspaper giant, New York Times, as an example. As one of the most successful media in the world for digital transformation, it currently has 2.8 million digital subscribers, which comprises nearly two-thirds of their digital revenue.

It is true that the rapid development of the Internet and social media has promoted the spread of news. The world’s information streams seem to flow into our mobile phones and computers, through which we can find out about what is happening around the world almost instantly anytime, anywhere.

Professor Hadland acknowledged that the digital age has had a positive impact on our lives, but it also means the death of privacy and a decline in emotional health of citizens, especially the young generation.

When we browse the Internet, use social media, and subscribe to news feeds, the algorithms behind them also domesticate us. According to our preferences, they push news that we might be interested in. Unconsciously, we start consuming a myopic range of information and become besieged in the “information cocoons”. Different opinions are filtered by the algorithm, and our inner thoughts are gradually strengthened in the subtle. Step by step, the ability of decision-making fades away, and it is difficult for us to distinguish between truth and falseness of information. In particular, the young generation, known as the “Digital Native”, have been influenced by digital media since their childhood. A danger is that, in the absence of a healthy news media sphere, they are more likely to be influenced by a confusing array of information on the Internet, which may lead them to go astray.

Monetisation | The “Expensive” Democracy Behind Digital Media

Professor Hadland mentioned in the lecture that healthy conditions of news and media are prerequisites for a healthy democracy. However, the development of digitisation does not only bring the problem of “algorithm domestication”, but also threatens the healthy democracy of news. Christina Neumayer, a professor at the University of Copenhagen, mentioned in the book Journalism & Democracy in the Digital Age: Digital media does not only have a positive impact on the public domain, what is more, the potential for democratic technology development is overestimated.

On the one hand, in the context of digitisation, people’s privacy has been challenged unprecedentedly. As the European Commissioner Kuneva said, “The personal information is becoming the new oil of the Internet and the currency of the digital world.” That is increasingly true of the new business models technology companies have championed. The Internet giants such as Google and Facebook have been accused of forcing users to share personal data. Such is the extent of privacy violations that the Austrian privacy activist Max Schrems had called for Facebook and Google to fined 3.9 billion and 3.7 billion euros respectively (the sum of the two is about 8.8 billion dollars).

On the other hand, the wider voice space and information channels also bring with them the complexity of information. As fake news swarms, people are increasingly mistrusting the information they get from the public domain. In this digital world of “ordering and filtering information”, the state of news and media has deteriorated, and the emotional health of young people has declined, with their decision-making ability steadily decreasing. This is a vicious circle out of which few see escape, unless you “switch yourself off”.

In the era of digitisation, the new globalisation, people have more opportunities to speak and consume information, and democracy seems to be more and more mature. However, due to the “death”of privacy and the reduced credibility of information, people’s decision-making ability is correspondingly reduced, and the cost of maintaining democracy is also increasing.

Just take Brexit, for example, following a very confusing and questionably truthful campaign. In the whole process of holding a referendum, negotiating with the EU, reaching consensus, and signing an agreement, the UK spent a total of 50 million pounds. However, in the past 45 years, the annual contribution paid by the United Kingdom for the EU was about 50 bullion dollars. Apparently, the United Kingdom has pay a extreme expensive cost to maintain “DEMOCRACY”.

The purpose of the news is to ensure people have access to information. But in fact, with the development of journalism in the digital age, we are faces with a cohort of new enemies. The journalism industry will face greater pressure and challenges as well. At the end of the lecture, Professor Adrian Hadland said: When democracy is in crisis, journalists should ensure accountability, transparency and the public interest. These are fundamental for a healthy democracy. The next generation of journalists is on its way, and we want to ensure we have a healthy and diverse media sphere. Professor Hadland said he is very proud to be a part of the team preparing future journalists for shaping healthy conditions for a democracy we all want to be a part of.