Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Journalism: The End or the Beginning?

To say that traditional journalism is dying is an understatement. Journalism died 20 years ago, and Don Hewitt and Ted Tuner – not the internet – are who killed it.

A Bit of History

In the 1960s there were two main forms of journalism – print and broadcast. People got their news from the radio, television, or newspapers, and that was about it. And each of these media had its own vibrant and colorful history.

For newspapers, they had always been in it for the profits. Newspaper wars – like those between publishing giants Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst – were fierce battles. Big, bold, and eye-catching headlines were used to sell papers – regardless of how newsworthy the story actually was. It was Yellow Journalism at its finest. By the mid-1900s things calmed down a bit, but newspapers – with their ad-based business model – were still in it for the money.

Starting in the 1950s, television news broadcasts grew in popularity, although they were by no means replacing newspapers. But the biggest difference between what showed up on doorsteps in the morning and what came out of the television at the night had to do with making money.

As mentioned, newspapers had always been expected to bring in profits – after all, the paper was their only source of revenue. However, television news had a whole network behind them. It wasn’t a necessity for the nightly news broadcast to have amazing ratings; it was seen more as a public service. A widely-watched, trusted nightly news program was just part of having a quality network. (The only such news programming that still exists is found on mission-oriented channels such PBS or CSPAN.)

The First Blow—TV News as Entertainment

Then came Don Hewitt and 60 Minutes in 1968. By the mid-70s, its hidden cameras, “gotcha” journalism, and investigative reports had made 60 Minutes one of the most watched shows on television (success they’ve continued to have). Better overall ratings meant CBS could charge more for ads and make more money. With ratings through the roof, other networks began to rethink their nightly news broadcasts. The 1976 film classic “Network” – which featured the first (fictional) TV anchor to be killed because of poor ratings – predicted this oncoming avalanche. By the 1980s, most networks abandoned the public service mission of their newscasts and worked harder to bring in the dough. Professional, newsworthy stories at times largely went out the door and were replaced with salacious and sensational coverage.

The Other CNN Effect

And while Don Hewitt and 60 Minutes may have been bad for traditional journalism, Ted Turner and CNN were arguably much worse. 1980 marked the arrival of 24-hour news, and the departure of what was left of traditional journalism.

CNN was the first 24-hour, all-news television network in the United States. They covered all the news they could, and if they needed to, they would repeat some news stories throughout the day (every half hour in the case of Headline News). This was great because most people watch the news in 20- or 30-minute segments, not all day long. And for several years, CNN was one of a kind. But the late 1980s brought CNBC, and a few years later Fox News and MSNBC were on the scene.

By 1997, all of these (and more) 24-hour news networks were in competition with each other. Because of this, there was a perceived (and, in this author’s opinion, falsely perceived) need to have content that was new and different from the other networks – something incredibly difficult when you’re already trying to fill 24 hours a day with a finite number of newsworthy facts (add to that the assumption that most viewers don’t care about most international content). Unique content had to come from somewhere else if they wanted to keep ratings high.

Pundits, analysts, and special guests were brought on to help bring another dimension to the news – commentary. But over the past decade, that dimension has taken over almost completely. The majority of shows on any given news network today focus on editorial news and interpretation of facts. Opinion has begun to crowd out content. Networks have devolved to a point where they, at times, fill their content almost entirely with speculation, commentary, and opinion. And when most of what is called “news” is really just angry people yelling at each other and trying to prove their point, it’s not journalism, it’s arguing.

But What About Newspapers?

Up until the last five or ten years, newspapers didn’t have to necessarily worry about 24-hour coverage. They would publish their paper the night before, send it in the mornings, and then go to work on that day’s stories. They may have placed the articles from that day on their Web site, but it wasn’t a medium in and of itself. But what CNN did to broadcast journalism, the internet and blogs did to print.

With the unprecedented growth of the internet, newspapers couldn’t satisfy their readership by only having the news of the day (or, in most cases, the previous day). They had to have breaking news, updates, and online-only stories. But the demand for unique content was greater than what could be supplied. So newspapers everywhere did the same thing as broadcast news – they put anything they could on their site, including speculation, editorial, and gossip. More and more reporters were expected to also be bloggers – not just focusing on the facts, but ranting about them as well.

Our Current State

As a news organization produces more and more opinion and editorial, it will naturally drift toward a certain ideology. This creates liberal or conservative networks or papers – instead of objective news. They may provide time or space for dissenting opinions, but only to disprove the opposite viewpoint. All of this has polarized journalism.

On top of all of this – the history, the struggles, the evolution – is, as previously mentioned, the internet. The internet changed the face, the appearance, and the distribution of news, but it wasn’t what necessarily destroyed it. The internet gets a bad rap in this regard. There have always been partisan news organizations (although not as mainstream as in recent years). And for those people who only want to hear the news they agree with, they know who to go to. Objective, traditional news has always been able to function alongside these more biased organizations. The internet shouldn’t change any of that. Hard news can still be hard news, and soft news can still be soft news. The problem with the internet is that, for some reason, it often seems to make these companies think they have to be everything to everyone – videos and audio and blogs. Perhaps what needs to happen is for each and every newspaper, television show, blog, and Web site to decide what niche it wants to fill.

There can still be, and are, national news organizations. Some have been able to remain rather objective – the Associated Press and Reuters – while others have found themselves drifting toward a certain side of the aisle – New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, etc. And there’s nothing wrong with them promoting a certain ideal if that’s what they choose, but they shouldn’t necessarily try to disguise themselves as traditional news. There’s no need for them to pretend to be something they are not.

And there can still be local news organizations, although some of them have been the hardest hit by this shift in journalism. These organizations don’t necessarily have the resources to report on national news stories – except, perhaps, those that affect their local communities – and can continue to focus on traditional journalism. Generating revenue is difficult, but the solution isn’t necessarily to throw away everything that journalism used to be.

Solutions?

One possible solution is to get rid of the archaic, advertising-based business model most newspapers still abide by. One such organization, which has been seen as a pioneer in the future of journalism, is voiceofsandiego.org, which is professionally staffed, online-only, covers breaking news, produces ground-breaking investigative journalism, strives to increase civic participation, and – perhaps most surprising – is a nonprofit organization.

Frustrated with the coverage put out by the The San Diego Union-Tribune, the major newspaper in the area,  voiceofsandiego.org was born and has since been featured on the front page of the New York Times and profiled in the Christian Science Monitor, received numerous journalism awards, and has been used as a model for similar organizations throughout the country. It relies primarily on donations and trusts in the idea that average people really do see the value of investigative reporting and information as a public good. This isn’t to say that every news organization needs to become a nonprofit. But for local newspapers and television stations – those who haven’t the desire, resources, or demand they once enjoyed – it’s an attractive option.

The Future

The future of journalism is unclear, but it doesn’t have to be. If each and every news organization establishes its own objectives, picks its market, and continues to produce a great product, it has nothing to worry about. But if a journalistic entity claims to be one thing and then works toward something else, it will do nothing but harm to its readership and its purpose. So while the distribution of journalism is changing, the principles of journalism don’t have to.