Why journalism is becoming more irrelevant and why that’s okay!

I didn’t actually want to write this article: I’ve been puzzling over it for the last few weeks and have come to the conclusion that there is already enough written about the media and newspapers in particular. But then a few things motivated me to do it.

(Reading time: 4 minutes)

One such thing was this radio interview with various representatives of media companies in Switzerland, in which the importance of the media (high) and the influence of the economic interests of the stakeholders behind the media companies (very low) were discussed. There was talk of opinion and debate leadership, of influence on society. The participants left no doubt that the media were extremely important for all areas of a country. I could only turn up the radio in amazement and disbelief. Are these people talking about the same journalism that we experience every day?

There are no major debates

This is because the major debates initiated by journalists are increasingly absent. Tabloid and factual reporting are merging and opinion leadership, if it exists at all, is increasingly dictated by the general political thrust of the publishing houses. Journalism is moving at a gallop away from being involved in social debates.

A good example of the relationship between technology, society and business

The changes in user behavior seem to have completely bypassed some newspaper publishers. This is because the changes brought about by the new technology are generating positive feedback effects on the media landscape.

First of all, it should be noted that newspapers have never made a living from journalism. Readers have never been prepared to pay the “real” price for journalistic work, because subscriptions have always been the smaller part of revenue. Most of the revenue was generated by advertising. It was precisely these advertisements that were the first to fall away when the Internet became established. Today, a vanishingly small proportion of job advertisements are still placed.

The same applies to advertising. It has been crumbling away for a long time and advertising spending still does not represent media usage. But we are getting closer, year by year. And the situation is getting worse for the media companies.

Measurability

The measurability of advertising measures has become a key issue in recent years. While offline advertising is practically impossible to measure (I can see a few media people throwing their heads in their hands in my mind’s eye – but that’s the way it is when you define the requirements for measurability as a clearly proven state and not as a sample from a survey), marketing in the online sector has virtually defined itself through measurability and analysis. And some marketing managers are increasingly skeptical when it comes to channeling budget into measures that are not so easy to measure. This effect will further curb the advertising business of newspapers.

Measurability as a currency

In the online offerings of newspapers, however, measurability has almost become a currency. As advertising offers are sold on the basis of clicks and require traffic, journalism has committed itself to generating these clicks.

More slapstick!!!?!!

As a result, this shift towards more superficiality has begun. Instead of going into more depth in terms of content, more “slapstick stories” are being produced because they simply lead to more clicks and traffic. And a lot is being invested in titles that are as attractive as possible. Because lurid or provocative titles mean clicks. And so sometimes even quite good articles have completely stupid titles.

Breasts, baby!

Somehow even the most sophisticated academics are interested in the fact that Angelina Jolie had her breasts amputated. Most people wouldn’t admit it, but a quick click to read the lead-in to the article is probably enough for most people. No one sees it.

Wrong incentives lead to wrong selection

Journalists who have been conditioned accordingly and are under pressure to succeed on a small scale are gradually redefining what journalistic success means to them. Whereas in the past it was the big debates and content, today it is clicks and traffic. The fact that readers often no longer engage with the actual content (beyond the outline) escapes many people. Or they don’t care.

Traditional journalism is becoming less important

And so this traditional journalism is becoming less important. Important in the sense of social debate and exchange. This is not a decline in values, but rather a logical consequence of the changes described above.

Paywall

Building the business model of the future (“paid quality journalism”) on this rather shallow content can only end in disaster. For me, this does not mean that paywalls, i.e. direct payment for content, have no future at all.

I think these models definitely have a future, especially in the area of weekly publications, where a certain deceleration prevails. But that you could live exclusively from it? I don’t believe so.

Painwall

Very often, paywalls are implemented very badly. A particularly glaring example from the recent past is that of the local Swiss newspaper “Basler Zeitung”:

Carelessly and without any thought, a login page was simply placed in front of certain articles (which the editors probably think are particularly interesting). All this “tinkering” is also used in the mobile app and is of course not mobile-friendly.

The result is that the app has become de facto unusable. Worse still… Many people around me didn’t even realize that it was now a matter of buying a digital subscription, but simply thought it was a bug. And have deleted the app in frustration.

The talk of the town shifts

While the media used to shape and dominate the talk of the town, i.e. current social debates, serving as beacons of opinion, so to speak, many of these debates are shifting to Facebook. In recent weeks, I have often followed discussions about the elections in Switzerland on Facebook. And yes, of course there was a lot of primitive and ridiculous stuff.

But don’t kid yourself. Even the regulars’ tables 25 years ago weren’t any more substantive. But if you take that out of the equation and filter it out a little, there are more people than ever taking part in discussions and expressing their points of view. That can only be a good thing if you believe in democracy.

“Empowerment of the individual”

Our time is slowly but steadily delegating information to the individual. We can see this in the area of product information, for example. Today, it is more the case that the consumer is taking advantage of providers. This “empowerment of the individual” does not stop at the media. And it has only been possible since digital technologies have given every small citizen the opportunity to present their view of things to a larger audience. For example, with a comment on the Bild website or with their own blog. Just to name the range.

This is fundamentally a good development. After all, the more opinion-making and leadership is spread across several shoulders, the better. This automatically reduces the risk of abuse and conspiracy. You wouldn’t believe how traditional media companies are influenced by economic interests, both on a small and sometimes large scale.

From this perspective, I am looking forward to an even more heterogeneous “media landscape”. One in which many individuals express their personal opinions and develop thoughts. This will result in a broader, more diversified and more independent discussion. We have been on this path for some time now.

Traditional media companies are not becoming obsolete, but…

Traditional media companies will not simply become obsolete, but they should engage in dialog with bloggers and thought leaders. After all, they don’t necessarily need the media to make themselves heard. This blog is the best example of the fact that this also works for simple-minded workers in the Lord’s vineyard.