Objective journalism is dead
After spending the lead up to the US election on the campaign trail, Australian editor and journalist Aleks Vickovich argues there is now no question: objective journalism as we knew it, is dead. In this guest post, he explains why the role of media as an impartial observer is redundant and the significant implications this has for media businesses.
Having spent the past 18 months in the United States as a contributing editor for a number of financial services publications, my focus was largely on covering American business communities and representing the media brands at events and conferences. But as a curious journalist with a lifelong interest in politics, I also kept a steady eye on the presidential election and American democracy more broadly, including spending the final months of my US journey out on the campaign trail.
Putting the actual politics of the election to one side – as there is definitely no shortage of commentary out there on this front – the more interesting aspect of the race from our perspective is what it has meant for the future of media production and distribution.
Having followed as closely as anyone would care to without suffering severe mental ill health, my conclusion is that the election has some significant implications for those in the media business.
The election was not so much a turning point for media and content providers, but rather served as conclusive proof of a trend that has already been underway for some time, which is that objective journalism – as was the predominant model from the birth of the printing press in the 1500s until the digital age – is well and truly dead.
Now, I can hear some sobs coming from some journalism fans out there, so let me be clear. This does not mean that accuracy no longer matters or that facts are completely irrelevant or, most importantly, that there is no future for quality content.
What it does mean is that the traditional role of the media as impartial observer, simply to explain things to those who weren’t there, has become disrupted and redundant in an age where billions of people document their every move online.
Instead, the media – or at least, its most successful and forward-thinking players – have taken on a role not as impartial explainer, but as opinion maker and shaper.
Indeed, this is the first trend facing media providers that I think has been highlighted by the election.
Rupert Murdoch is rumoured to have coined the phrase “opinion is news” and it is now truly a mantra for the times. This approach was emerging as an alternative to the traditional model for some time, but has now become dominant.
The most obvious and successful example of this is Murdoch’s own Fox News in the US, which emerged as a right-wing alternative to what it said was left-wing bias in the mainstream newspapers and TV channels. We have also seen the same strategy come to Australia with a more aggressively opinionated stance visible in recent years in The Daily Telegraph and the Herald Sun. More recently, other right-leaning online publications have flourished such as RedState, The Daily Caller and the controversial Breitbart.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the ideological spectrum, similarly opinionated websites have sprung up offering a mix of news, opinion and commentary from an unashamedly left-of-centre perspective, such as The Huffington Post, Salon, Mother Jones and Slate.
These publications, whatever your view of their politics, have been on a consistent upward trajectory in terms of readership and revenue and – importantly – they have worn their biases on their sleeves.
By contrast, the mainstream media, i.e. the free-to-air news channels and celebrated newspapers like The Washington Post and The New York Times, have faced a dilemma whereby they continue to maintain their objectivity and resist the ‘opinion is news’ trend – but many consumers have continued to detect political bias.
It was this deceit, rather than any particular political view, that readers and viewers ultimately took umbrage with. In the aftermath of the election, these once-respected mastheads have seen subscriptions plummet, not because their readers supported Trump – very few NYT and WaPo readers are Republican-leaning – but because they do not appreciate being lied to, or for political biases to remain undisclosed.
Perhaps more worrying still for the mainstream American media is that their research and polling was so inaccurate, with the vast majority of outlets predicting an easy Clinton victory.
This can be partly explained by the fact that, with the Trump campaign being so divisive and controversial, few Americans were willing to publicly admit their support – even anonymously to pollsters. But it also suggested that many of these media providers have a data problem.
With his millions of Twitter followers and organic support via huge rally attendances, Trump was able to secure direct distribution to voters and, in particular, to voters who are increasingly unreachable to the east coast-based and left-leaning media companies.
This focus on data and distribution – and ensuring the cleanliness and accuracy of media databases – is a major focus for modern media businesses and one of the attributes that will set you apart from your competitors.
While so many media companies continue to provide broad and objective information to mass audiences, defined by geography or general association, the alternative is to implement a ‘narrowcasting’ approach, providing targeted information to niche audiences in their own language.
The global media is now catching on to the reader engagement and commercial benefits of narrowcasting, and of being a stakeholder and opinion maker within your audience’s sphere, rather than simply an information provider.
While I hesitate to compare successful modern media companies to Trump, a focus on data and on successfully distributing targeted and opinionated content to important niche audiences is a recipe for success in both the new media paradigm and, it seems, in American electoral politics.
This approach has seen some media companies shine in the new world, particularly those who have also embraced content marketing, podcasting and other commercially friendly initiatives.
Meanwhile, Australian incumbents like Fairfax experience awkward and very public death throes – their staff spending time whining and protesting as if they were oppressed mine workers, rather than sanctimonious and privileged journalists who refuse to read the tea leaves and adapt to the world that their consumers want.
There is plenty of controversy in the air when you consider the US election and other populist movements afoot across the globe.
But history will likely view this also as a turning point for the business of media, and while the incumbents continue their denial, innovative insurgents are eager to disrupt, experiment and invest in their crafts, with a constant eye on driving value for their audiences, communities and commercial clients.
Aleks Vickovich is managing editor, wealth and innovation at Momentum Media, where this post originally appeared.
Disclaimer: Mumbrella’s editor Vivienne Kelly was previously an editor at Momentum Media
The challenge I put to you – and all providers & consumers of media when this is said:
“focus on data and on successfully distributing targeted and opinionated content to important niche audiences is a recipe for success ”
… is this: When individuals can develop their own echo chamber “for free” by consuming the internet, should the role of of “big banner” media be the same?
User ID not verified.
Opinion is news and medias role is to shape opinion. Oh dear.
First question: where’s the money? None of this analysis indicates there is money in foghorn journalism. Fox makes money out of telling people what they want to hear, but that’s hardly influence.
Second question: what does polling have to do with it?
News media pay for polling in order to have action in their political reporting. So what?
User ID not verified.
If you think the NY Times and Washington Post are not partisan you need to lay off the drugs.
User ID not verified.
I think it would be fair to say Objective journalism has been dead for many decades when it comes to News Corp. Opinion replaced facts a long time ago but just as importantly, editing out the news that does not fit its agenda has arguably been its biggest crime.
This “‘narrowcasting’ approach, providing targeted [propaganda] information to niche audiences in their own language” has been part of a political agenda for years and is transparently non-objective. In a race to the bottom of the barrel News Corp have lead the charge and we are now all paying the price.
User ID not verified.
Objective journalism? Never was never will be. We all have confirmation bias which means there can be no objectivity in any journalist’s report. That doesn’t even take into account the bias or agenda of the media owners.
User ID not verified.
Some facts wouldn’t go astray here: the New York Times subscription base actually grew tenfold, adding 132,000 digital and print subscribers (mostly digital), after the election. The Atlantic saw subs increase 160% post election. The Washington Post also saw a “steady increase in subscriptions” over 2016 and The Economist’s subscriber base has grown too.
Sources: Nieman Lab, Fortune, CNBC
Also the old Lippman idea of objectivity has always been a contentious topic in journalism. Steven Maras’ great book Objectivity in Journalism will give you a good history of the debates, and shows how objectivity’s being reinterpreted now in ideas like fact-checking, transparency and trust.
User ID not verified.
This writer is wrong on so many points. Subscriptions to the New York Times didn’t “plummet” after Trump was elected — they increased dramatically: http://cnb.cx/2fya6Jg. And the publisher of the Washington Post announced after the election that the company would be profitable for the first time in years, thanks in part to a 75 per cent jump in digital subscriptions: http://bit.ly/1NkwpYj.
Meanwhile most of the ‘new media’ sites this writer heralds as the future either barely break even — Salon, HuffPost — or barely qualify as opinion, let alone journalism. Breitbart News last month fabricated a story about an angry mob of 1000 Muslims burning down a church in Germany – presumably this is a great example of “providing targeted information to niche audiences in their own language”.
Maybe Mumbrella should employ a fact-checker — you know, like the ones that some of those old-hat “objective” media organisations have.
User ID not verified.
Facts seldom tell the whole story, Politicians never tell the whole story, internet is today’s electronic version of the early newspapers, which were filled with ads for hair restorer, vitality pills, and battery powered underwear.
Good journalism has always been with us, it is a matter of human dignity. There will always be a group of people who will sell their souls, who will “brown nose” for perceived advantage, who will grandstand for the benefit of others or for themselves.
Good Journalism consists of adhering to the facts, checking the substance and the source, sorting the wheat from the chaff, and finding the bravery to stand alone, if necessary, and challenge anything that stands or leans against what most people would consider intelligent and moral human decency.
I have no faith in god, little faith in politicians, and a cynical view of big business, but I have a great respect for good journalism and for good journalists. The world has been shaped and reshaped by politicians and armies and natural forces, but journalists have predicted some, reported nearly all, and in some cases, shaped the world more effectively and with much less heartache.
User ID not verified.
“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed:
everything else is public relations.”
User ID not verified.
The industry version: “Everything else is Campaign Brief”
User ID not verified.
Wow, what a load of tripe. Objective journalism doesn’t exist now because it never did (or will). The observer necessarily influences what is observed. Get some quantum physics into ya.
User ID not verified.
1. Write article about how journalism is no longer about facts.
2. Contradict reality in said article by inventing facts to support your argument (e.g. NYT subscriptions “plummet” when in fact they’ve grown tremendously)
3. “Objective journalism is dead”, I guess.
Nice attempt at thinkfluencing though.
User ID not verified.
Please don’t ever use the “word” thinkfluencing again.
The world thanks you.
User ID not verified.
More than ever, digital media has splintered the vague entity that passes as informed journalism into tribes. You want your lefty warm inner glow satisfied you go to the Guardian, you want your rightest commerce is king feelings realised you go to the Australian. You want both sides explained and a fully informed conclusion reached … well, good luck finding that.
We look to have our own biases satisfied and the internet has made that easier than ever before – but the more we’re able to find out, the less we’re liable to look as we’re safely bunkered down in our little ideological hidey-holes. There might be a billion mega-mouths, influencers and BS merchants out there spruiking everything from political punditry to yummy mummy wisdom but most of them say nothing new, let along worth looking at or listening to. Kinda sad, but there’s always cute cat videos.
User ID not verified.
Mumbrella, certainly do appear to practice journalism, which is great.
User ID not verified.
Another polarising article written to generate comment.
I’ve fallen for it.
Wikipedia is no longer using the Daily Mail as a source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
Objective media is not dead. People are becoming increasingly annoyed.
User ID not verified.
It was probably 10 years ago when Rupert Murdoch addressed his editors and said that newspapers need their own personality. Readers who seek the facts need only be made aware they exist to seek them out eg “New Report says Australia Needs Coal [link]” . Anything more than that is either summary or opinion. Of course many readers want a summary or opinion.
The question of whether falling print subscriptions whilst increasing on-line subscriptions is a sign of health or decline doesn’t matter. It is a bit like the saying that a letter of complaint is equivalent to 10 phone calls. Whether it is the NYT or SMH the issue is falling revenue. No company can exist for long without revenue. They risk becoming the equivalent of the Guardian, unprofitable and telling a narrow readership what they want to hear (and so having no influence)
The biggest two newspapers in Australia the Herald-Sun and Daily Telegraph maintain their readership on large doses of sport from the front page to the back. Of course, sports coverage by its nature is largely opinion but it is likely that only publications like these will be able to influence public opinion in political or other areas because only these will have a broad enough readership.
User ID not verified.
Seriously ???
You say you work as a “contributing editor for a number of financial services publications” and you’re only NOW ready to admit that what proclaims to be independent journalism is anything but ??
No one picks up a financial newspaper or magazine expecting it to be anything but selective cheerleading and blackballing of financial policies and business activities according to vested interests.
User ID not verified.
Regarding the current affairs of east coast Australia, News, Fairfax and the ABC collectively more or less define truth. Add Seven West and Nine and most of what most people think about Australia is covered. This doesn’t change if any of these are profitable or not, as long as they keep the (metaphorical) presses running.
If “you want both sides explained and a fully informed conclusion reached” (as zumabeach is looking for), then I suggest turning to AAP. Having the News and Fairfax press as dual masters keeps it fairly centrist. If/when Fairfax is taken over by Nine, I fear most for AAP.
The most objective journalism is always composed with at least one objective. People have always wanted media that shared their objectives. In the immediate past, there was lots of competition for reaching similar objectives. Now every possible objective is fought for by many players, though many Australia-centric ones are much less funded than they used to be.
User ID not verified.