Journalism today is emerging in an increasingly anti-journalism world, under pressure from Big Tech entrepreneurs, those who cry ‘fake news’, information overload and AI rubbish. What can be done? A vision for a media-literate society in times of pessimism. An essay by Bernhard Pörksen, media scholar.
Optimism, as the playwright Heiner Müller – a man known for his aphoristic witticisms – once said, is a lack of information. Pessimism, one might counter, is a lack of ideas. And yet: when one realises what the ongoing media revolution means for independent journalism, it is difficult at present not to join in with the already widespread doomsday prophecies, not simply to continue feeding into the narrative of decline.
In her last major television interview in 1973, the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt said: “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen.” Her warning remains as relevant as ever. For what Arendt calls the free press is currently under immense pressure at this juncture in the history of the media and humanity, including here in this country. The fact is: today, investigative journalism is emerging in a world that is increasingly hostile to both journalism and the pursuit of truth.
Three major trends
Three major trends are at play in the background. Political In many European countries and in the USA, we are witnessing the rise of populists and extremists who do their utmost to harass, attack and demonise the independent media. Technologically The AI revolution has long since become ubiquitous. The result: business models of independent media outlets that were only just managing to survive are collapsing overnight. And vast quantities of AI rubbish in the form of fake videos and fake texts (technical term: AI Slop) are flooding the internet, making it difficult to find one’s way around, and causing journalistic content to get lost in the din.
Economic The Big Tech entrepreneurs – who, with the help of the major platforms, have long since gained control over the key distribution channels for information – are dragging serious journalism into a ruinous battle for autonomy. For journalism must now play by the rules of a tabloid-style attention lottery, rules dictated by Big Tech companies with their algorithms designed to stir up controversy and emotional reactions – and which they vary at their discretion. At the same time, the advertising markets – once a key source of funding for journalism – are drying up.
Just one figure: last year, three companies – Google, Meta and Amazon – accounted for more than half of all global advertising revenue in the digital market. On top of that, many people are suffering from an overload of world events amidst the general turmoil of the crisis. They are turning away, switching off, searching – sometimes desperately, sometimes exasperatedly – for digital detox remedies and oases of soul-nourishment far removed from the news. In times of widespread anxiety about the future, this is entirely understandable, yet ultimately disastrous. For how is a genuine scandal – think only of Donald Trump’s mafia-like behaviour, but also of an explosive local revelation – supposed to make an impact when, out of sheer fear of crisis and revulsion at all the nonsense, nobody wants to look or listen anymore?
Pessimism is a waste of time
And yet: pessimism is a waste of time, a pointless drain on mental energy, always in danger of turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. For what else is there to do, why should one still get involved, if the general state of affairs seems as dark and bleak as an unalterable fate for humanity? Resignation and escapism then seem like clever solutions for stressed individuals, but they are harmful to democratic coexistence and social engagement.
My thesis is that – especially now, especially today – we need a vision of media literacy that consists of a three-pronged effort. Firstly, we need an educational initiative that is in step with the digital age. Just as environmental awareness emerged in the 1970s, a kind of media literacy should now emerge (and this can only be achieved through a joint initiative involving schools, universities, adult education centres, etc.) in response to the littering and plundering of the journalistic world around us. Public awareness to develop an appreciation of the value and vulnerability of the public sphere, understood as the intellectual space in which a liberal democracy thrives.
Secondly, robust regulation of large platforms is essential. The various EU initiatives – such as the Digital Services Act – which urge big tech platforms to combat disinformation more effectively, are certainly a step in the right direction. The only question is whether they can actually be enforced in the wake of the geopolitical upheavals and the rift between the US and Europe.
Finally, and thirdly, journalism too must change as we move towards a society in which people are media-literate. I maintain that the enlightening journalism of the future will be dialogical and transparent – or it will not exist at all. In a truly media-literate society, readers are, even more so than before, accomplices, critics, companions and dialogue partners on an equal footing. They are catalysts in a vast, vibrant, never-ending conversation between the editorial team and those whom, in a bygone media era, one would have called the audience. And who, today, have long since been broadcasting, posting and publishing themselves.
We need a pact for dialogue-based journalism
My point is this: in the fight against Big Tech giants, in the protection of independent reporting, and in the drive to foster media literacy across society, – a new pact is needed between the ‘fourth estate’ of traditional journalism and the ‘fifth estate’ of the networked masses, the audience that has come to wield media power. We need stable relationships of trust, mutual inspiration and transparency, not least by editorial teams explaining their work much more thoroughly than before – in reports and debates, in blogs and through direct interaction – guided by the imperative of dialogical journalism: “Give your readers every conceivable opportunity to assess the quality of the information you provide!”
Once again: keeping abreast of the laws governing one’s own sector is now an unavoidable second job for media professionals. This means identifying the costs and pitfalls of investigative journalism. It means being open about one’s own mistakes, whilst also making it clear in principle that without vibrant journalism, corruption in a community rises, civic engagement demonstrably declines, and populist simplifiers and PR specialists – who simply want to sell – become more powerful.
And what if it does go wrong, if the deafening din and synthetic clamour of AI videos drown out the diversity of voices found in authentic media and among real people? Then, until that point actually arrives, the Enlightenment optimist and defender of a democratic public sphere will at least have led a better life and, at the very least, not prematurely drowned their own commitment in general pessimism. And that is a value in itself, isn’t it?