It’s almost a hundred years since Niels Bohr discovered the so-called uncertainty principle, meaning that it is impossible to know everything about a give article. Either you can know the position or the movement, but you cannot know both at the same time. It’s taken a lot of time, but my sense is that this principle is currently haunting the media business. Needless to say, not in its pure form but in the sense that after decades of confidence (some would say overconfidence) in itself and its purpose, the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) is now racked by doubt and consumed by worry and uncertainty concerning its role, its future and even if there is a future.
This affects all aspects and almost all types of media. The traditional newspapers are the most obvious victim, hit by a barrage of challenges; the most serious of which are the internet and its promise of instant news and the free newspapers which seems to be multiplying in most major cities. But the crisis is not limited to newspapers, but can be felt by all media that used to see itself as a self-appointed guardian of the public interest. Ratings for mainstream television news is dropping rapidly, replaced and out competed by – again – the internet – and cable news stations such as Fox News where objectivity have given way to subjectivity and current affairs often seems little more than an opportunity for the talkshow hosts to pontificate.
However the crisis goes deeper, much deeper that Google News and the O’Reilly factor, and strikes at the very heart of professional journalism. The basic question is this: In a world where everybody with an internet connection can claim to be a journalist, where the power and reach of the traditional quality media is declining rapidly and – most disturbing of all – most people seem perfectly content with letting the traditional media wither and die, where is the future for journalists. And what happens to society if there is no future?
This is the question that has consumed editors and journalists worldwide for the last few years, without anyone coming up with good answers. Of course all papers and news organisations have frantically been investing in their websites, hiring bloggers and dabbling in multimedia. All of which have attracted people and traffic to their sites which are also beginning to see much more advertising, but still very far from enough to make up for the loss in the traditional markets. But even if the news sites managed to become much bigger and much more profitable it would still leave a huge gap compared to the traditional media. Not only are the news much shorter and – generally – much more superficial, it’s also different news that attracts readers. Check almost any newssite for the ‘most read’ story and you will invariably find a story about sex, celebrities and animals – and ideally a combination of all three. The in-depth though provoking piece on the Taliban threat in Wasiristan somehow never makes it to the list.
Serious journalism – for lack of a better word – therefore feels increasingly like a threatened species, at least in its traditional form, and making the problem worse is that it’s not just the consumers and technology that have changed, it’s also the owners. In the ‘good old days’ the owners of newspapers and other serious media were either former journalists or enlightened people of wealth who saw their ownership of the newspaper as a kind of public trust, where good journalism rather than profits were the name of the game. These days are all but over. In the US the Bancroft family recently capitulated and sold the Wall Street Journal to News. Corp. and Rupert Murdoch, leaving only the Washington Post and the New York Times in the traditional family controlled hands.
And even those bastings of journalism are under attack, recently the New York Times two-tier stock structure – which is the key in the Ochs Sulzberger-family’s control of the paper – came under attack from Wall St. And as the former editor of the L.A. Times said in a speech last year, the new owners are interesting in only one thing: Money. They don’t give a damn about the public interest and in an age where the media is already challenged, this single-minded focus on profits increases the worry and uncertainty among journalists.
So – where does all this worry and uncertainty leave journalists and journalism? Nobody knows and in a sense that’s a good thing. For a long time media was in the hands of the very few and very static. Now it’s the complete opposite. As this very site illustrates, publishing is no longer a privilege for the few but an option for almost everybody. And while it leaves the traditional media in dire straits (although I feel confident most of them will find a way to bounce back) it gives everybody else a much better say and a chance to be heard.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who posted this?
My name is Marcus Rubin. Currently I live in Jerusalem, where I read the bible, write a column for the Danish newspaper Politiken and a book about human rights in the Middle East. In January I move to Washington D.C. to cover the elections. I’m originally a lawyer – studied law in Copenhagen and London – but have worked as a journalist/editor in Denmark and the US for the last seven years, focusing on culture and international affairs.
Who sent me the challenge?
Nadja Pass. WoW1.
My challenge goes out to:
Marcus has now passed on the challenge. Check back – or subscribe to this blogs rss-feeds – for the next Wave of Wisdom…
I think you are rigth about that no one knows where the new media leaves journalism and journalists.
In my opinion new media is making media closer to the users and it is the knowledge sharing person to person that I am really into – when it comes to new media. However even though I love to scoop around new media for subjects of interest – I still read my everyday newspaper because it gives me stories that I wouldn’t look up myself.
I think that journalists and journalism needs to become more original and more storytelling focused – and try to cover a subject from a lot of different opinions, where new media is all about you own opinion.
so journalists and journalism needs to reinvent itself and make themselves interesting in another way than they used to.
Henriette, I think the “stories I wouldn’t look up myself” perspective is very interesting.
Personally I’m all into the new media and think I get a lot of interesting perspectives when I follow unexpected links. But I still worry that we’ll eventually become very narrowminded if we always are able to pick, mix and select exactly what we want to read about or listen to. Sometimes you just don’t know that something might interest you…and sometimes even the stuff that really doesn’t interest you is “good” for you.
So I agree, the omnibus newspaper gives you a selection of information and inspiration that you wouldn’t have looked for yourself but might be really good for you. Kind of like eating your greens and your apple a day to keep the doctor away.
Being a teacher of literature and language, I am reminded of the canon discussions of my own field when reading the thoughts of the post and comments: Which kinds of knowledge are most highly valued by society? (And, not forgetting, whose knowledge?)
Is there a canonical knowledge that we, as educators, should preferably let our students get acquainted with?
Which knowledge gives one the best position to act from in terms of being a better person? Certainly not the Sex/Animals/Celebrity Triangle that Marcus mentions, and yet that is in fact what readers seek galore, self included (*hangs head in shame*).
Maybe media weren’t created in order to create better persons?
Well. On a more serious note: What should we then be looking for in media? Nadja uses the word “inspiration”. I use the word “knowledge”. The two are related though there’s a slight difference, yet I do think both apply. “Knowledge” is created in the body/brain of the reader and then stored for later usage. The concept of knowledge is communal in the sense that it is based on cultural concensus and social values. Even though knowledge is perceived individually, it is something that is shared. To be inspired by something is an action rather than an actual input. It calls for more immediate individual action than just knowledge being stowed away. On a long term, individual inspiration could benefit society as a whole.
The knowledge that I (as an educator and avid media consumer) wish for future generations is inspirational knowledge. Knowledge that can be stowed away but is applicable. Something that makes my students “better persons”. Knowing of the latest scandals of Pete Doherty and Paris Hilton doesn’t do the trick alone because it cannot apply to much, even if it is, indeed, interesting.
Media is changing, and so is the world, with all of our many common challenges as a species. That’s why it is so very important for me as a teacher to inspire [sic] students to get acquainted with media that gives them their daily greens, in order to get their digestion system to work. And that involves a certain canonical, common knowledge. Pick-and-mix-media cannot ensure that.