Opening up edito­rial offices to build trust

Does our society need journalism?

Every society needs veri­fied infor­ma­tion, and that is precis­ely what jour­na­lism provi­des. It gives access to infor­ma­tion that is as close to the truth as possi­ble, making it central to the proper func­tio­ning of a demo­cracy. Jour­na­lism is at the heart of this dyna­mic: it enables citi­zens to be infor­med, to under­stand diverse points of view and to form their own opinion. Another aspect that is often mini­mi­sed, but equally essen­tial in my view, is that jour­na­lists create a link between citi­zens, between diffe­rent popu­la­tion groups in our coun­try and between commu­ni­ties. Finally, there is a third dimen­sion. Jour­na­lism helps people find their bearings in their daily lives by tack­ling subjects that are some­ti­mes conside­red less serious but which corre­spond to the expec­ta­ti­ons of the public; they are also topics that may be discus­sed with family, friends or at the coffee machine. Foste­ring debate is also one of the roles of journalism.

Yet busi­nesses, autho­ri­ties and poli­ti­ci­ans now have various means at their dispo­sal to commu­ni­cate directly through their own channels. 

Indeed, the media are now just one chan­nel of infor­ma­tion among many others. Comple­xity has increased. The ques­tion ther­e­fore how this chan­nel can diffe­ren­tiate itself from others.

Does jour­na­lism still have a unique niche?

Yes, because it meets objec­ti­ves and requi­re­ments that are diffe­rent from those of other content produ­cers. Parti­cu­larly in the funda­men­tal diffe­rence between infor­ma­tion and commu­ni­ca­tion. Jour­na­lism is defi­ned by a series of ethi­cal and deon­to­lo­gi­cal prin­ci­ples, both indi­vi­dual and coll­ec­tive, that diffe­ren­tiate it from other stake­hol­ders. This should not, howe­ver, lead to the dismis­sal of other chan­nels that contri­bute to the rich­ness of our infor­ma­tion ecosystem.

What do you mean by that? 

I am thin­king, for exam­ple, of the infor­ma­tion prac­ti­ces of the youn­ger gene­ra­tion, which are some­ti­mes dispa­ra­ged. Although they use what we call the ‘tradi­tio­nal’ media less, they rely on other highly rele­vant sources, such as popu­lar science content, discus­sion chan­nels, etc, that they find on social networks. These types of content can be comple­men­tary to that produ­ced by jour­na­lists. They are crea­ted under diffe­rent condi­ti­ons and outside the tradi­tio­nal jour­na­li­stic circuit, while closely resembling it in content and even in purpose. 

Some media outlets work with the format of reader-repor­ters. Is jour­na­li­stic trai­ning still necessary?

This is a very inte­res­t­ing subject that can be asso­cia­ted with what has been called parti­ci­pa­tory jour­na­lism. This prac­tice is older than digi­tal, but has acce­le­ra­ted in this context with a growing demand on the part of the public to parti­ci­pate in infor­ma­tion gathe­ring. The media quickly saw this need and tried to address it in a variety of ways, such as by using reader-repor­ters, blog­ging, etc. But they also saw the risk of giving the impres­sion that there would no longer be a need for trai­ned journalists. 

And do we need them?

I am convin­ced that jour­na­lists have an essen­tial place, but they need to better explain their role and added value in a para­do­xi­cal context of criti­cism and ques­tio­ning, and also reco­gni­tion of their unique useful­ness, as the first weeks of the Covid-19 pande­mic showed, with a signi­fi­cant increase in their audi­en­ces. To return to parti­ci­pa­tory jour­na­lism, it does not mean that citi­zens take the place of jour­na­lists. Rather, it’s about reflec­ting toge­ther on possi­ble ways of collaborating.

How could that work?

CORRECTIV in Germany is a good exam­ple of how citi­zens can be invol­ved in the produc­tion of infor­ma­tion, in this case inves­ti­ga­ti­ons by inves­ti­ga­tive jour­na­lists. The CORRECTIV team has devi­sed ways of brin­ging toge­ther audi­en­ces and jour­na­lists without mixing genres, with a view to enhan­cing the value of diffe­rent voices. This is one of the keys, coupled with a better under­stan­ding of what audi­en­ces expect and how jour­na­lists and media can respond. Rese­arch has shown that signi­fi­cant diffe­ren­ces exist between the views of jour­na­lists and those of citi­zens. This leads to mutual misun­derstan­ding and distrust. Howe­ver, focu­sing on audi­ence expec­ta­ti­ons does not mean only offe­ring simpli­stic enter­tain­ment content.

Is parti­ci­pa­tory jour­na­lism a form of commu­nity management?

Parti­ci­pa­tory jour­na­lism as prac­ti­sed for many years was based on the simple prin­ci­ple of invol­ving people in the produc­tion of infor­ma­tion; for exam­ple, by sending photos, videos, texts, commen­ting on artic­les, etc. This view of parti­ci­pa­tory jour­na­lism has led to disil­lu­sion on both sides. The rene­wal of links between jour­na­lists and the public today takes new forms: listening, direct exch­ange, and also an effort by edito­rial offices, the media and jour­na­lists them­sel­ves to make their work better known and to explain it. This can be done, for exam­ple, by opening the doors of edito­rial offices.

What does this mean?

Jour­na­lists should take more time to properly explain their jobs and their approach: why a parti­cu­lar article was produ­ced, how and why a parti­cu­lar person or insti­tu­tion was cont­ac­ted and not another. It is ther­e­fore a ques­tion of making the reader aware of what is invol­ved in the produc­tion of infor­ma­tion, with its speci­fi­ci­ties and its cons­traints. This approach would help to raise aware­ness of jour­na­lism in an acces­si­ble way. For jour­na­lists, this pushes them to take better account of the society on which they report. It is a form of jour­na­lism that aims to improve mutual under­stan­ding between citi­zens on the one hand and jour­na­lists and the media on the other.

Could this stop people from turning away from the news media?

Yes. Some­ti­mes we hear that people are no longer inte­res­ted in infor­ma­tion. It is true that there is a certain fati­gue when it comes to the news. Some people can not take bad news any more – and in recent years, crises have come thick and fast. Howe­ver, it is a mistake to believe that people are no longer inte­res­ted in news and infor­ma­tion, that they no longer want to know what is happe­ning around them or in the world. Quite the oppo­site. Digi­ti­sa­tion has greatly expan­ded access to a multi­tude of sources. Today, the consump­tion of infor­ma­tion is enorm­ous. On the other hand, access to infor­ma­tion through tradi­tio­nal media has redu­ced. This is where action is needed to re-estab­lish the link. It is essen­tial to remem­ber that these media are a key piece of the infor­ma­tion puzzle for those who want to learn about the facts, the opini­ons that are circu­la­ting, the deba­tes and the discus­sions. It’s too easy to say that people do not look for infor­ma­tion any more and that they are turning away from the media. That shifts the respon­si­bi­lity on to consu­mers of the media. But yes, the link has been parti­ally broken and must be re-established. 

But it is precis­ely because people today use many infor­ma­tion chan­nels and get infor­ma­tion from social networks that there is a risk of filter bubbles and fake news. Where does Switz­er­land stand on this subject?

The impact of fake news is worry­ing, parti­cu­larly for the main­stream media. Howe­ver, rese­arch shows that we tend to overe­sti­mate this pheno­me­non, both in Switz­er­land and globally.

We overe­sti­mate fake news?

It is a sensi­tive issue where perso­nal impres­si­ons, along with both public and poli­ti­cal discourse, mingle with scien­ti­fic rese­arch. The latter, parti­cu­larly in the social scien­ces, shows that this pheno­me­non is more complex than the idea of a wave of fake news that over­w­helms us and mecha­ni­cally influen­ces us. This is certainly a growing pheno­me­non, but many studies show that fake news affects and has an impact on a limi­ted circle of people, often via filter bubbles crea­ted by algo­rithms. It reaches people who are alre­ady recep­tive or even convin­ced by the theo­ries it conveys. That is why we must be careful not to overe­sti­mate this pheno­me­non and unwit­tingly parti­ci­pate in its amplification.

Is this the case in Switzerland?

Just before the Covid pande­mic, we star­ted a study that showed that disin­for­ma­tion was less wide­spread in Switz­er­land than in other count­ries, speci­fi­cally neigh­bou­ring count­ries. Covid has shaken this obser­va­tion some­what with the deve­lo­p­ment, parti­cu­larly in Switz­er­land, of various conspi­racy theo­ries; for exam­ple, those rela­ted to vaccination. 

How can we fight this fake news?

This is a major chall­enge for the main­stream media. Fight­ing fake news must seem to them as futile as trying to empty an ocean with a teas­poon, although that is the core of their job: the search for the truth. Fact-checking, aimed at untang­ling the true from the false, is a prac­tice that has become incre­asingly deve­lo­ped within the media. Howe­ver, in the course of my rese­arch, I have found that young people are not very inte­res­ted in this fact-checking approach. They believe that a subject is often more complex than it appears and that label­ling it as true or false is not enough. What inte­rests them is to immerse them­sel­ves in the comple­xity of under­stan­ding the pheno­me­non. Young people expect jour­na­lists to show diffe­rent opini­ons, explain where fake news comes from and put into perspec­tive the reasons why someone broad­casts it. The media has a lot of work to do in this area. They have alre­ady begun to deci­pher these complex phenomena. 

But is there not a risk that fake news will gain credi­bi­lity if too much atten­tion is paid to it?

Avoi­ding giving credi­bi­lity to fake news by trying to verify the facts is indeed a tricky task. Studies, parti­cu­larly in the US, show that it is precis­ely when the tradi­tio­nal media tack­les fake news that it gains in signi­fi­cance and legi­ti­macy. Even when it comes to ques­tio­ning fake news and veri­fy­ing the facts, the subject is para­do­xi­cally brought to the fore­front. It is through media coverage that fake news reaches the gene­ral public, even though it may remain confi­ned to certain circles within the digi­tal space. This is parti­cu­larly proble­ma­tic when some poli­ti­cised media choose to ‘white­wash’ fake news by trea­ting it as conven­tio­nal news. 

What else can the media do to fight fake news?

One stra­tegy that is incre­asingly being employed, in which the media are parti­ci­pa­ting, is the streng­thening of various forms of liter­acy, with a parti­cu­lar focus on educa­tion in media and infor­ma­tion liter­acy. The aim is to help citi­zens deve­lop a criti­cal view of the content. This is also inten­ded to serve to improve their know­ledge of the infor­ma­tion factory, how the media work, how they are finan­ced, etc. Lack of know­ledge breeds mistrust. The media must explain what they are doing. They must not take trust for granted. 

Is this a new thing?

This was alre­ady happe­ning in the past, but the recent explo­sion of infor­ma­tion sources means it is more needed than ever now. Faced with a multi­tude of versi­ons of the same infor­ma­tion, we are constantly led to doubt. The media ther­e­fore must make their opera­ti­ons trans­pa­rent. What is their edito­rial line, how are the subjects chosen, from what angle are they hand­led? People who are not parti­cu­larly fami­liar with the media world have very diffe­rent ideas of how jour­na­lism works. Reaching out to audi­en­ces, invol­ving them, can help make people aware that jour­na­lism is essen­tial and that the infor­ma­tion the media produce is important and relevant.

What is the role of media busi­ness owners? Would a foun­da­tion be the ideal solu­tion to guaran­tee inde­pen­dent journalism?

There is debate about state aid for the jour­na­lism sector. This is an inte­res­t­ing path, but it requi­res safe­guards, parti­cu­larly in terms of edito­rial inde­pen­dence. Trans­pa­rency needs to be streng­the­ned, in parti­cu­lar in explai­ning how and by whom infor­ma­tion is finan­ced. It is also important to discuss the limits of trans­pa­rency within the media and with audiences.

What kind of boundaries?

Jour­na­li­stic work is not, by defi­ni­tion, a trans­pa­rent act. Some of its prin­ci­ples, such as the protec­tion of sources, may be far from it. Rese­arch has also shown that in some cases trans­pa­rency can disrupt public under­stan­ding. It is ther­e­fore a prac­tice that could clearly be streng­the­ned in edito­rial offices, while ques­tio­ning its imple­men­ta­tion and impacts. 

Have the media them­sel­ves not dama­ged their own rele­vance with infotainment?

This asser­tion defends the idea of poli­ti­cal jour­na­lism, acting as the fourth power of the state, like a watch­dog. This is, of course, a very important task. Howe­ver, there is no single defi­ni­tion of jour­na­lism, but a multi­tude of versi­ons of jour­na­lism. Some forms of jour­na­lism, which are more service-orien­ted, popu­lar and orien­ted to ever­y­day life, are just as useful and important, in parti­cu­lar for audi­en­ces. When conside­ring how to deal with infor­ma­tion, I am also convin­ced that it is possi­ble to address some issues in a very serious way, but with a diffe­rent tone that may be ligh­ter, more repre­sen­ta­tive, more immersive. These new approa­ches may lead to a rethin­king of the distinc­tion between enter­tain­ment and infor­ma­tion. This distinc­tion is, of course, crucial, and under­pins the work of jour­na­lists in produ­cing infor­ma­tion. But perhaps we need to look more at buil­ding bridges.