Who Will Expose Political Corruption After “Old Media” Dies?
Recently, it has become fashionable to dismiss newspapers and television as “old media.”
Biased reporting, manipulation of public opinion, vested interests—there is no shortage of reasons to criticize them.
I myself often question the way television news is reported.
But that does not mean everything will be fine if old media companies go out of business. It is not that simple.
The other day, I watched a video featuring a former newspaper political reporter who now works as a freelance journalist. What he said made me reconsider the issue.
A Newspaper’s Name Was More Powerful Than He Had Imagined
He spoke about the power of an organization—something he only fully understood after leaving a major newspaper.
When you work for a newspaper, information comes in through the press club system, and staff within the company help support investigations.
Above all, if you introduce yourself as a reporter from a major newspaper, you can request an interview even with a prominent politician.
Once you go freelance, however, everything changes.
Simply securing an appointment with a politician becomes an ordeal. You have to handle every investigation and every administrative task yourself.
His abilities did not suddenly deteriorate.
Even for the same reporter, removing the newspaper’s name also removes the environment that allowed him to put his reporting skills to work.
When you think about it, this is obvious.
Even an excellent engineer would struggle to build the same large-scale system alone after losing the development environment and team of a major company.
The same is probably true of journalists.
Do Politicians Celebrate When Newspapers Disappear?
In the United States, local newspapers have been closing or shrinking, leaving communities without reporters who cover local news on an ongoing basis.
Local newspapers did more than simply introduce local stories.
What are mayors and council members doing? How are tax revenues being spent? Are there suspicious contracts or improper payments?
They performed this kind of unglamorous oversight.
When newspaper reporters disappear, so do the people who continually investigate the actions of politicians and public authorities.
For anyone committing misconduct, nothing could be more welcome.
Perhaps the people celebrating the financial decline of newspapers are not limited to those attacking “old media” online.
The people who are truly celebrating may be the local power brokers who used to have newspaper reporters constantly on their heels.
The Internet Is Full of Commentators. But Who Does the Reporting?
Some people may say that even if newspapers decline, we still have online media and YouTube.
But there is a fundamental problem here.
The internet is well suited to publishing information, but not to spending time and money investigating it.
Suppose, for example, that someone investigates corruption in a local government.
They collect documents, meet sources, verify testimony, and continue reporting for months.
Even after all that, they may ultimately find nothing.
By contrast, a video that picks up a politician’s comment already attracting attention online and offers an opinion or criticism can be produced quickly.
And the latter may attract more views.
A YouTuber who talks for 30 minutes about the news can make more money than the reporter who spent months uncovering the misconduct.
Under those conditions, no one will want to undertake time-consuming investigative reporting.
The internet is full of people talking about politics.
But who originally investigated and brought them the news they are discussing?
Trace it back, and the source is often one of the very newspapers or television networks they criticize.
They ridicule old media while earning views from information gathered by old media.
It is quite an efficient business model.
What We Need Is Not More Commentators, but People Who Dig Up Information
Of course, investigative reporting does not require a newspaper company.
Independent investigative journalism organizations that operate primarily online also exist.
However, they need sustained funding to survive.
Reader subscriptions, donations, and support from nonprofit organizations are some possible methods.
What these approaches have in common is that they assess the value of journalism by standards other than views and website traffic.
Investigative reporting can take months to produce results.
During that time, reporters still need living expenses and money to conduct their investigations.
And if they discover nothing, there will be no article to publish.
It is unreasonable to judge such work solely by daily view counts.
The decline of the newspaper business model and the disappearance of the social function newspapers performed are two entirely different matters.
What Will Remain After Old Media Disappears?
I have no intention of defending newspapers or television networks unconditionally.
On the contrary, I have plenty to criticize about the way they have reported the news.
But the fact that an organization deserves criticism does not mean the function it performed should disappear with it.
The internet has no shortage of people willing to criticize politicians.
But what happens if no one is left to discover a politician’s misconduct, gather the evidence, and publish the story in the first place?
The very material needed for criticism will disappear.
Politicians will then find it easier to conceal wrongdoing, while online pundits do little more than repeatedly comment on whatever existing news remains.
After old media dies, the internet will be left not with people who scrutinize politics, but only with people who comment on it.
Politicians could hardly ask for a more convenient public sphere.
After all, even though no one is investigating anything, everyone will happily talk as if they know what is going on.