Revisiting the death of journalism

Almost two years ago I wrote in this blog about the death of journalism, or at least the journalism I have known and loved for more than 40 years. I don’t think I have ever felt so depressed by a subject. In fact, it turned me off blogging and I did not make another contribution to Towards a Better Day until earlier this month.

With more time on my hands than I have experienced since my first job in the mid-1960s I have revisited the website and, tentatively begun to resurrect it. That article is still there, now two or three down on the list, and what it says seems just as relevant and prophetic at a time when heavy staff cutbacks have affected the newspaper where I spent much of my working life The Canberra Times in Australia’s capital.

In search of something new to say on the subject I came across the transcript of a speech by the Federal Member for Fraser, Andrew Leigh, until recently my local Member of Parliament.
In his address, part of The University of Canberra Public Lecture Series, Leigh analysed the problems and attempted to set out solutions to the malaise that professional journalism – and especially newspaper journalism – finds itself in today. He asserts that good quality, investigative journalism still matters, still influences public opinion and perceptions and, in some instances, can still change history. However, its voice is being smothered by, on the one hand, restructuring resulting from the continual leakage of advertising revenues to the internet and conversely, by the falling cost of getting a message out there that encourages everyone with an opinion and a computer to be a ‘citizen journalist’ (although Leigh never uses the term).  

“The big technological shift in media has been the falling cost of disseminating ideas. Cable and digital television have expanded the number of channels. Digital radio will have the same effect on that medium. Ubiquitous broadband has allowed news to be conveyed through a host of electronic media. Among Australian adults who are online, almost all use social media, with 76 per cent using Facebook, and 10 per cent using Twitter. About half of all Australian politicians tweet,” he says.

This has led to what he describes as ‘information inequality’. For people who seek the news, there has never been a better time, Press conferences are played live on television and radio, transcripts or reruns of programs missed can be easily obtained, thoughtful bloggers abound and tweets can provide the headline links to almost any subject under the sun.

But at the same time for the less engaged sections of the population, the result has been information overload. At one time everyone read the same newspapers, listened to the same radio broadcasts and watched the same television programs. For the people who were more interested in Lara Bingle than Laurie Oakes, something of Laurie Oakes filtered through. Now they can immerse themselves in a diet of Bingle, swimsuit models, celebrity chefs, with a good lashing of sport and be unaware, if not of the Prime Minister, then certainly their local MP.

“I believe that changes in the media are one of the factors making this group of Australians more disconnected from politics. In effect, technology has widened the information gap between the most-informed and least-informed members of society,” Leigh says.

He suggests a number of solutions without really recommending any: a stronger and more effective complaints mechanism; subsidies for genuinely quality newspapers; giving newspapers which subscribe to a code of conduct tax deductible gift status.

But the nub of these arguments concern politicians themselves. Ministers and Shadow Ministers have surrounded themselves in a cocoon of advisers who worship the 24-hour news cycle. The 10-second grab is worth more than the carefully explained policy. The story that makes headlines in the morning is dead by the evening. There is now a deliberate and determined attempt to dumb down the electorate’s consumption of news, to shorten attention spans. Slogans and catch-cries have replaced reasoned arguments and analysis.

Is this what the public wants? I believe it is not. But it is what politicians want because they know many of their slogans and catch-cries won’t stand up to detailed inspection. The new journalism is a golden age for the populist with a simple message.

Questions like ‘is it feasible?’ and “who pays?’ can wait until after the next election.