“If a story needs real investment of time and money, we don’t do it anymore”:[1]
The rise of new media models and the fall of the Fourth Estate
by Hayley Ericksen
The future of journalism is bleak. While journalism was once lauded for its function as the Fourth Estate of government,[2] the quest for profit maximisation and the prominence of digital technologies have combined to ruin the art of quality reporting in the 21st century.[3] The United States have been a dominant player in this travesty; leading the world towards a media model characterised paradoxically by a “survival of the fittest” mentality that has seen independent news organisations swallowed by politically-driven conglomerates and the removal of barriers to entry to the media industry due to the popularity of the Internet as a news source.[4] Framing these trends against traditional conceptions of the media’s role as an impartial provider of information and mechanism of accountability[5] reveals that media today fulfils a very different function to that envisioned in the past. The concept of the Fourth Estate was established during the Enlightenment period, signalling a political role for the media to provide impartial checks and balances on government actions.[6] However, in the current media environment, “the distinction between information and entertainment is obsolete.”[7]
This essay will explore the rise of new media models and the fall of the Fourth Estate with reference to the development of large corporate media, and its effects on the quantity and quantity of output. It will then illustrate how corporate ownership has enforced its ideological bias onto media content, creating a polarising effect between partisan viewpoints. Finally, it will analyse how barriers to entry have been eroded by the rise of Internet journalism, creating a new legion of contributors who are not subject to quality control.
In the space of mere decades, journalism has metamorphosed from the simple (yet elegant) combination of the daily newspaper in the morning and an evening television bulletin[8] into an immense and inescapable onslaught of 24/7 cable channels and relentless streams of online content.[9] Accompanying these trends has been the rise of mass media conglomerates that horizontally integrate a wide range of news sources and mediums and bombard the public with a monotonous slew of duplicative political messages.[10] The corporations that service these media empires typically promote the objectives of “productivity, efficiency, and profitability”.[11] While perhaps a successful business strategy, quality journalism is squeezed out as a result.
Journalists and reporters take on additional roles and responsibilities, meet tighter temporal and spatial constraints,[12] and are expected to shift between platforms.[13] Essentially, the new media model encourages the cutting of corners (Wikipedia, anyone?) and discourages fieldwork. It is hardly surprising that today’s media is struggling to fulfil its role as the government’s watchdog given that a focus on rapidity and quantity of output is, as Klinenberg notes, inversely correlated with quality.[14]
Aside from the valuing of quantity over quality, a common charge levied at mass media conglomerates is that they are ideologically biased and covertly (or arguably, overtly) promote political agendas in their content,[15] which undermines the media’s role as the Fourth Estate. This phenomenon is widespread. For example, in 2002 the publisher of the Ottawa Citizen, a newspaper in Canada controlled by the CanWest Global media empire, was fired for printing scathing criticisms of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien of the Liberal Party, who was a close friend of CanWest’s owner.[16] He had also disobeyed company policy by refusing to publish centralised editorials that were intended to represent the “core values” of all CanWest newspapers, offering shameless support of the Liberal Party.[17] Media coverage of Australia’s recent federal election similarly sparked fiery accusations of partisan journalism. In particular, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp publications, which offered the opinion that “Finally, you now have the chance to kick this mob out”,[18] clearly favoured a Liberal victory.[19]
While events in Canada and Australia are telling, media coverage in the United States arguably promotes the most starkly partisan views of the news of any democratic country. One need only compare the news coverage of the conservative Fox News cable network with the liberal MSNBC cable network to see partisanship at its worst.[20] In support, in 2012 the Unites States ranked 47th in the global Press Freedom Index.[21] Even publicly funded news organisations have fallen prey to corporate influence, with the Public Broadcasting Service being overrun by pro-business conservatives.[22] Interestingly, American consumers are not bothered by this bias; these broadcasters have all secured a loyal audience of similarly minded individuals. It appears that members of the public want material that conforms to their own worldviews.[23]
This is perhaps the biggest problem raised by the new media model. As Gore identifies, Representative Democracy demands a “well-informed citizenry”.[24] What do you do if citizens prefer to remain ignorant? In these circumstances, not only is the media’s function as the Fourth Estate failing, it is rendered obsolete.
Interestingly, while the content of news reporting is being increasingly influenced by the views of a select, biased few, the nature of the digital age has meant that the barriers to entry into the media market have all but disappeared.[25] Every man and his dog can be a journalist if they so choose. Not officially, of course – but the moment someone creates an online blog or a Facebook account, their political opinions are as accessible (and unavoidable) as any newspaper or television reporter.[26] A recent Pew study showed that “while mainstream news sources still dominate the online news...a majority of [users] now get political material from blogs”.[27] Unfortunately, rarely has anyone succeeded in amassing scores of Facebook “likes” or blog followers by presenting a rational and balanced view of political issues. The entry of new journalists into the market has not resulted in productive checks and balances of the government as the Fourth Estate intended, but rather has contributed to polarisation of public opinion.
In theory, the removal of barriers to journalism is not a bad thing. Information exchange is, of course, at the heart of democracy.[28] Laissez-faire economists around the world are no doubt welcoming the deregulation of the journalism market, which has allowed the media environment to adapt to consumer demands. Blogs are increasingly contributing to the spread of ‘news’, not only because of the lowering of barriers, but because consumers enjoy engaging with this type of information source. Online journalism is more ubiquitous in developed countries, with the United States leading the charge, because the diffusion of Internet technology is necessary for both contributors to distribute their opinions, and for consumers to access them.[29]
Despite the potential to view the rise in loungeroom journalism as improving the future of the craft, it is arguable that any positive effect is negated by the fact that it is now more difficult to discern fact from opinion. Due to the difficulty of policing online content, contributors are free to promote their views, however skewed or poorly informed they may be, without any quality control. This creates an environment where news consumers can be easily misled which exacerbates the quagmire of an uninformed citizenry.[30] At the far end of the spectrum, popularist claims may eventually inform government policy rather than evidence-based research. As Liu, Horsley and Yang argue, excessive public backlash prevents the government from making positive decisions, and will instead seek “decisions that go unchallenged.”[31]
Applying Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of “creative destruction” suggests that that social constructivism and technological advancement lead to the creation of new products that cause the destruction of existing markets.[32] In recent decades, technological advances including cable television and the Internet have intensified the circulation of information and tailored content to meet public demand. This illustrates how the development of this new gargantuan information market orchestrated the collapse of the old media model.
The contemporary media model has progressively eroded the media’s traditional virtuous casting as the Fourth Estate. In the era of hyperconsumerism, new markets are constantly created to meet demand; and the media industry is not immune. An industry which once prided itself on its steadfast independence has been recognised as a plum opportunity to turn a profit. The success of the emergent style of reporting, which emphasises quantity over quality and attracts loyal audiences by explicitly promoting a particular ideological philosophy, highlights that today’s media environment is expertly servicing the public’s preferences. However, for those that judge the media against its traditional role as the Fourth Estate of government, the contemporary media model is a resounding disappointment. Accessibility has come at the cost of integrity.
So what does the future hold for journalism?
Not a lot. But if demand is anything to go by, most of us are okay with that.
Bibliography
Beers, David. “The Public Sphere and Online, Independent Journalism.” Canadian Journal of Education 29 (2006): 109–130.
CBC News. “Citizen publisher fired after critical coverage of PM,” 18 June 2002. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/citizen-publisher-fired-after-critical-coverage-of-pm-1.330360 (accessed September 12, 2013).
Fisher Liu, Brooke, Horsley, J. Suzanne, and Yang, Kaifeng. “Overcoming Negative Media Coverage: Does Government Communication Matter?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22, no. 3 (2012): 597–621.
Gans, Herbert J. Democracy and the News. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Gore, Al. The Threat to American Democracy, Associated Press/The Media Center (October 5, 2005). Available online at http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05154.html (accessed September 8, 2013)
Gurevitch, Michael, Coleman, Stephen, and Blumler, Jay G. “Political Communication – Old and New Media Relationships.” Annals of the American Acadamy of Political and Social Science 625 (2009): 164–181.
Holgate, Ben, and Hyland, Anne. “News Corp Australia CEO Kim Williams steps down,” Australian Financial Review, 9 August 2013. http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/news_corp_australia_ceo_kim_williams_vDhcAkeNXekJtiFrvLRlKP (accessed September 12, 2013).
Johnson, Thomas J., and Kaye, Barbara K. “Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the Internet Influence Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs Among Blog Users.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (2004): 622–642.
Klinenberg, Eric. “News Production in a Digital Age.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597 (2005): 48–62.
Prior, Markus. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3 (2005): 577–592.
Reporters Without Borders. Press Freedom Index 2011/2012. Available online at http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043 (accessed 11 September, 2013).
Rohlinger, Deana, A. “American Media and Deliberative Democratic Processes.” Sociological Theory 25, no. 2 (2007): 122–148.
Schultz, Julianne. Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper, 1975.
Starr, Paul. “An Unexpected Crisis: The News Media in Postindustrial Democracies.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 17, no. 2 (2012): 234–242.
Stern, Michael J., and Rookey, Brian D. “The politics of new media, space, and race: A socio-spatial analysis of the 2008 presidential election.” New Media & Society 15, no. 4 (2012): 519–540.
Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.Com. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.
The Daily Telegraph. “Consign Rudd to the bin of history,” 5 August 2013. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/consign-rudd-to-the-bin-of-history/story-fni0cwl5-1226691046953 (accessed September 12, 2013).
Weaver, David, and Scacco, Joshua. “Revisiting the Protest Paradigm: The Tea Party as Filtered through Prime-Time Cable News.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 17 (2012): 1–24.
Young, Dannagal G. “Political Entertainment and the Press’ Construction of Sarah Feylin.” The International Journal of Media and Culture 9, (2011): 251–265.
8
[1] Eric Klinenberg, “News Production in a Digital Age,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 597 (2005): 62
[2] Klinenberg, 49; Julianne Schultz, Reviving the Fourth Estate: Democracy, Accountability and the Media (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1.
[3] David Beers, “The Public Sphere and Online, Independent Journalism,” Canadian Journal of Education 29 (2006): 113; Al Gore, The Threat to American Democracy, Associated Press/The Media Center (October 5, 2005). Available online at http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/05/10/ale05154.html (accessed September 8, 2013); Michael Gurevitch, Stephen Coleman and Jay G. Blumler, “Political Communication – Old and New Media Relationships,” Annals of the American Acadamy of Political and Social Science 625 (2009): 167; Klinenberg, 56.
[4] Herbert J. Gans, Democracy and the News (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 30; Thomas J. Johnson and Barbara K. Kaye, “Wag the Blog: How Reliance on Traditional Media and the Internet Influence Credibility Perceptions of Weblogs Among Blog Users,” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81 (2004): 622.
[5] Gore.
[6] Schultz, 26.
[7] Dannagal G. Young, “Political Entertainment and the Press’ Construction of Sarah Feylin,” The International Journal of Media and Culture 9, (2011): 251.
[8] Markus Prior, “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science 49, no. 3 (2005): 577.
[9] Gans, 30; Gurevitch, Coleman and Blumler, 174.
[10] Klinenberg, 52
[11] Klinenberg, 62.
[12] Klinenberg, 51; Deana A. Rohlinger, “American Media and Deliberative Democratic Processes,” Sociological Theory 25, no. 2 (2007): 125.
[13] Klinenberg, 53.
[14] Klinenberg, 53-56.
[15] David Weaver and Joshua Scacco, “Revisiting the Protest Paradigm: The Tea Party as Filtered through Prime-Time Cable News,” The International Journal of Press/Politics 17 (2012): 65.
[16] CBC News, “Citizen publisher fired after critical coverage of PM,” 18 June 2002. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/citizen-publisher-fired-after-critical-coverage-of-pm-1.330360 (accessed September 12, 2013).
[17] Beers, 112; CBC News.
[18] The Daily Telegraph, “Consign Rudd to the bin of history,” 5 August 2013. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/consign-rudd-to-the-bin-of-history/story-fni0cwl5-1226691046953 (accessed September 12, 2013).
[19] Ben Holgate and Anne Hyland, “News Corp Australia CEO Kim Williams steps down,” Australian Financial Review, 9 August 2013. http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/news_corp_australia_ceo_kim_williams_vDhcAkeNXekJtiFrvLRlKP (accessed September 12, 2013).
[20] Weaver and Scacco, 65.
[21] Reporters Without Borders. Press Freedom Index 2011/2012. Available online at http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043 (accessed 11 September, 2013).
[22] Beers, 112.