The new world of journalism

Journalism is in a mess, and it is changing so fast. Meanwhile the world is changing even faster, and we need good journalism more than ever.

The old world of journalism is dead. Long live the new!

I liked the old world of journalism. And it still exists – a bit. In that old world, facts were valued, rather than opinions. Of course opinions were still there, not always apparent, and sometimes more effective in selective reporting of the facts, with some facts carefully omitted. Still, the facts were meant to be paramount. I loved an ancient TV series, Dragnet, in which Sergeant Joe Friday expressed it perfectly “Just wanna get the facts, ma’am – just the facts.”

Still, the old journalism did undergo editorial scrutiny, do fact-checking, and even had grammar and spelling checked. And it does still exist today, when the Internet has nearly killed print journalism, and its funding from advertisers.

But – it’s limited. The new digital media has overwhelmed it. You get not just young teenagers gossiping, but also heads of state announcing things, via TikTok or X or Facebook, Instagram, and many other platforms. And the message is above all – new, fast, short and visually arresting. No, I haven’t done the research, nor produced a PhD paper about this, but my observation is that longform journalism is read by the much older generations.

Still, forms other than text are doing well, and information and opinion are broadcast by podcast and YouTube journalists, so providing perhaps a more accessible form of longer journalism, though the fact-checking may be dodgy.

So, in place of the staid, somewhat reliable old journalism, what do we have? We still have the struggling print, radio and TV “mainstream media”, where journalists “mind their p’s and q’s”, because they don’t have the job security that used to be taken for granted. Of course, there are “safe” specialities like sport, cooking and gardening, but current affairs, politics, environment, climate and much else – these are dangerous territories for the mainstream journalist.

Self-censorship is rife.

Then there’s “alternative media” where brave souls have branched out with new journals, funding this work sometimes by community organisations, libraries, universities, or just by themselves, and trying to get funding from readers. I really don’t know how successful they are, financially. But for some writers, myself included, these new journals provide the opportunity for self-expression.  For the public, they do provide a much-needed broader range of subject and opinion, than is available in the rather constipated traditional mainstream media.

So – where to – for the good journalism? And what is the good journalism? Well, back to good old Sergeant Joe Friday. For a start, we need to know that the writer’s facts are correct. Then there are those seemingly vague things, like authenticity and integrity. It’s a tortuous path to try and work this out. In Australia, the teaching of English does include awareness of logic, and of conflict of interest. These are aspects pretty much impossible to ascertain in the prevailing snappy digital media, but can be gauged in longer journalism.

Over many years, I’ve been studying articles from many sources – to find out what is effective, what is genuinely interesting and believable. I think that it’s time that those of us who appreciate integrity in writing should shout about it.

Just for a first shout – I’ll pick out a couple of shouts already made. Here I find examples of journalists who courageously identify mainstream media’s biased journalism. In FAIR (FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING) an experienced journalist, Ari Paul, takes on the enthusiastic coverage by The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the New York Times, The Times, The Chicago Tribune of “Trump’s Doctrine in Venezuela.” Paul  concludes:

“By kidnapping a foreign head of state, the Trump administration is saying that international law doesn’t apply to the United States. That’s a sentiment most American editorialists are all too ready to applaud – despite the danger it poses for Americans, and for the world.”

Elizabeth Smith, writing for the NTI – The Nuclear Threat Initiative – asks:

“What does it take to reveal truth in the face of censorship?”

She applies that principle in the media coverage of the 1945 atomic bombing, described in a new PBS documentary, “Bombshell.” She concludes:

”Bombshell lays bare the power of narratives – and counter narratives. It shows, with infuriating and heartbreaking precision, how misinformation about the bombings influenced public opinion.”

There are a lot of independent writers out there – some, like Ari Paul and Elizabeth Smith are highly qualified and experienced journalists, who go into their subject in some depth, and are not scared to rock the prevailing boat of safe complacency that increasingly pervades the self-censoring mainstream media. Others are less masterful in their use of language, and less qualified, but still get their message across in a compelling way.

See also:

Raw, Rude, and Angry – in the new world of journalism

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Donate via PayPal or credit card via the button below, or bank transfer [BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969] and help us keep shining a light.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team