Can Journalism Compete with Animal Videos?
In television news programs, the entertaining segment used to be the last one. People wanted to watch the whole program to see the funny ending. In order to learn about the world and stay up to date, people used to order newspapers and magazines.
I have a TV, but I have not turned it on in months. Nor do I buy any newspapers or magazines. I have no reason to, because Internet has unlimited content. For free. When I want. Where I want. What I want. No ads when using Ad Blocker. And I can skip the boring parts.
That is what I want. Dog videos and comedy compilations on YouTube make me laugh more than newspapers ever did. Shocking news stories create quicker and stronger emotional response in me than the complicated truth.
Facebook can personalize my news feed so that I never have to leave my filter bubble. The bubble that creates the reality that I like to believe in. The more I like something, the more I will see it. Things I do not like, I can just block, and they instantly disappear from my life.
Social media platforms use my personal data to target ads so that they are more likely to convert into purchases. Content in their feeds is generated by users and third parties for free. It is a lucrative business. Much more profitable than investigative, fact-checking journalism.
Therefore, traditional journalists are trying to learn from successful social media platforms and content creators. They raise curiosity with click bait titles. They handcraft as extreme stories as possible, with little regard towards how truthful or objective they are. They try to entertain us. And lastly, they prioritize volume over quality.
Who said journalism is about truth or investigative stories that uncover societal problems such as corruption? Sex, celebs and entertaining stories sell better. “Everything popular is wrong”, Oscar Wilde might say. But he is long gone, so surely, we can ignore his quote, right?
