Hope is on the Horizon
By Alan Nero
The nature of journalism has constantly been in a state of flux, as all social constructs are. They are ever changing, ever evolving. While the realization of change occurs at varying paces and degrees, dependent upon the sociopolitical climate and the state of technology, it is nevertheless inevitable.
Throughout the history of journalism, change mostly stemmed from technological advancements. When the printing press allowed for cheap mass production of printed material, the town crier was replaced by penny papers. Innovations in the press allowed for more in-depth stories and larger papers. As the radio grew in popularity, journalists began writing and reporting for live audio broadcasts. When the television became a household necessity, televised news stations arose, and with them came the 24-hour news cycle. Finally, the advent of the internet brought social media, backpack reporting, and universally accessible means to independently report across a wealth of platforms.
In contrast to the rapid development of new technologies, social justice and equality progressed much slower. As such, it wasn’t until the 20th century that diversity started its painfully slow advance. Even now, white men still hold the majority in representation and ownership across nearly every publication in the U.S. Nonetheless, that control is shifting, and media companies are gradually growing more diverse.
Despite these positive outcomes, the public’s faith in journalism has hit an all time low, as Sean Blanda discussed in his article Medium, and The Reason You Can’t Stand the News Anymore.
The capitalist nature of established media outlets has corrupted their once reputable names. The need to generate funding for companies as they struggle to compete with contemporary, online publications, has placed news organizations in the compromising position of balancing fair, hard-hitting reports with sponsored content and stories that pander to the advertisers upon whom they depend for income.
Additionally, publishers are locked in an ongoing struggle to report breaking news faster than their competitors. In doing so, they sacrifice accuracy and their reliability for speed. As a result, “Fake News” has become a stylized battle cry, used as a weapon against both inaccurate and truthful reportage alike.
However, hope remains. The chaos of inaccuracy and error we currently observe in the journalistic race to report on stories provides us with the promise of a way forward. If an independent news company were to focus on the most important issues and take their time to accurately report on them, they could distinguish themselves as a reputable publication that reliably provides verified facts on the same issues other companies get wrong in their own hurry.
Subsequent success of economically independent publications would then prove commercialism is no longer a requisite for journalists’ vitality.
If this trend were to continue, we would find ourselves among independent news companies free of corruption and manipulation that provide reliable stories. Though it may seem we’re in the darkest period of journalistic history, we in fact stand to get closer to a proper “golden age” of journalism than any other generation before.
