Journalism’s First Question

Journalism once asked, “What happened today?”

Now it sometimes asks, “Who’s most likely to be outraged by what happened today?”

The new first question

There was a time when journalism aspired to tell us what had happened and why it mattered. The reactions came later.

Today, it can seem as though the reactions are the story, while the event itself is little more than the excuse.

A government announces a policy. Before anyone has read the details, microphones are already being thrust towards whoever is most likely to denounce it as an attack on democracy, civilisation, family values, or the Australian way of life.

The announcement has barely left the minister’s lips before the race begins:

“Has anyone found someone who’s furious yet?”

It’s difficult to blame individual journalists. They operate in an attention economy where outrage is a valuable commodity. Calm analysis rarely goes viral. Measured agreement doesn’t trend on social media.

Nuance is a terrible clickbait headline.

Conflict, on the other hand, practically writes itself.

The modern newsroom must sometimes resemble an emergency call centre:

“We’ve got a major government announcement.”

“Excellent. Is anyone angry?”

“Not yet.”

“Keep looking.”

After all, a headline that reads “Government Announces New Policy” is unlikely to compete with “Politician Brands New Policy an Outrageous Attack on Common Sense.”

One informs.

The other performs.

This isn’t unique to one politician. Every political party has figures whose comments are reliably colourful, and every newsroom knows exactly where to find them. If the objective is maximum engagement, the loudest voices often become the most valuable.

It’s a curious inversion of journalism’s traditional role.

Instead of asking, “What is the significance of today’s announcement?” the temptation is to ask, “Who can provide the most entertaining response?”

The policy becomes the supporting actor.

The outrage gets top billing.

Of course, disagreement is essential in a democracy. Governments should be challenged. Oppositions exist for precisely that reason. Robust debate is healthy.

But there is a difference between reporting disagreement because it is important and elevating disagreement because it is profitable.

When every story is framed around conflict, audiences begin to believe conflict is all there is.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that journalism, which once prided itself on filtering out noise to reveal the signal, now sometimes amplifies the loudest noise because the signal alone isn’t considered exciting enough.

Maybe the first question in tomorrow morning’s editorial meeting shouldn’t be:

“Who’s going to be outraged?”

Maybe it should be the one journalism built its reputation upon:

“What actually happened today?”

Once, the obligatory quote came from the Leader of the Opposition. Today, it may come from whoever is best at opposing. Pauline Hanson comes to mind as a crowd favourite.