Journalism: the “4th pillar” of government. The watchdogs of politics (and other social institutions), they expose the unethical decisions of those in power. The IndyStar exposed Larry Nassar; the Atlantic shattered academia with its piece on the feasibility of reparations. The Guardian and the Washington Post revealed our NSA’s domestic surveillance under the Patriot Act. Even Buzzfeed News won a Pulitzer Prize for exposing the sheer degree to which China was detaining Uyghur Muslims, changing the political conservation about the nation’s infringement on human rights. Serious reporters adhere to a professional, ethical code built on advocating for transparency.
Journalists have made good, tangible change– yet journalism is affected by our economic structure. It is an industry, like anything else. In the era of online media, when clicks equals advertisements, attention, and ultimately greater profit margins, journalists (and their parent companies) are incentivized to sensationalize a story.
Being the “4th pillar” is a facet of reporting’s goals, but we may be looking at journalism too simplistically. We cannot afford to wholly moralize our news media. We must understand it operates in an economy. And, importantly, understand how that affects the news we read.
The Attention Economy
The “attention economy” refers to thinking about media consumption and viewership in economic terms–we can only physically see, read, or listen to so much per day. How do we choose what to consume? How should companies make sure it's their media we land on, and decide to stick around for?
Don’t misinterpret– the attention economy isn’t inherently ‘bad,’ and it's not… un-useful. Take the Pentagon Papers published by the Washington Post– the paper was economically struggling, and part of their incentive to publish the papers was to reclaim their foothold as a leader of investigative reporting. The Papers were published not only because it was right, but because it would attract reader’s attention. Further, they were close to not publishing it, as running the classified documents meant jeopardizing their newly publicly-traded company. The company’s status made it more liable for criminal prosecution– which, put simply, would have been an economic disaster. The attention economy’s draw almost didn’t outweigh the potential risks.
By profiting off eyes, articles that gravitate towards drama, bizarre subjects, or subversive politics are economically sound. The Atlantic’s “The Case for Reparations” offered a political view unheard of in mainstream dialogue in 2014. Great ideas, great journalism, requires newness– we want to read something we haven’t heard before. But it's easy to create drama and flair without investing the time, money, and energy of creating an in-depth longform article. Essays that read like cash-grabs can be ‘silly,’ like the New York Times suggestion we should have kid free airplanes, or separate “baby cabins,”or they can be disturbing– in 2019, the New York Times published an article advocating for an implicit “Jewish genius.” In trying to make a provocatively progressive article, they missed when author Bret Stephans used the opinions of a renowned eugenicist to back up his claims. As the NYT looked to captivate audiences by being edgy, by attracting ‘shock clicks’ to wow-did-he-just-say-that stories, they platformed harmful ideologies that profoundly missed the mark of their original point (i.e. advocating for racial minorities). When attention is a motivator, honest people are bound to make mistakes.
–
Think carefully about the news you read, even when the journalism is sound. Media doesn’t exist in a vacuum– and even great articles are undergirded by more than just the author’s conscience.
