When it comes to media outlets, stories are getting a lot shorter, and more emphasis is put into headlines and leads.
A good example is the Associated Press (AP), which routinely spits out 150-word or fewer stories. After a conversation with my editor, we picked up on how a breakneck and uncontrolled desire for expediency is fueling the media industry.
We talked about how this raises problems within a society, in that it encourages us to get lazy with selecting stories to read, preferring the bite-sized snacks over the hearty meals. It fosters an environment where the longer story that covers a concept so deeply is foregone for a bold headline someone can share on Facebook.
Some news services like the AP use Automated Insights, where someone feeds information to a machine and it spits out a short story within seconds. It’s being used mostly for stories about corporate earnings or sports.
It would seem as if the soul and art of journalism is being replaced by robots.
The scare of automation is there, but there’s another problem that correlates to my original topic, where this is breeding a generation of people who only want short stories.
If people’s abilities to consume longer stories and appreciate them were in decline, is it the journalist’s responsibility to address and fix it?
The way I see it, media organizations have enjoyed a great expression of individualism. Journalists have come together to set a code of ethics they abide by, unfettered by our government because of the First Amendment.
The problem in having this is what we see today. The use of robots for seemingly benign stories, short and often inaccurate stories made at lightning speeds and the trend of fake news websites are all a part of the individualism journalism enjoys.
It doesn’t take long for someone to see a niche and exploit it, promoting the spirit of competition within the industry. However, as news gets faster, where does that lead us?
I kicked around the idea of there possibly being a minor government entity to help regulate these trends in journalism.
Something to make sure long-form, accurate and meaningful stories could thrive without having to compete with more dubious competitors like the aforementioned examples.
Journalists cringe at the idea of government getting into media. They’ll cite North Korea and China’s governments as examples of oppressive state control on media.
I then wondered: since those governments favor more toward being totalitarian, have we seen an example of a more democratic government having a friendly influence on media?
I think it could be done, but not with what we have today. There are many reasons we can’t trust our government with anything, whether it be bureaucracy, money-wasting, bad influence or terrible quality, yet we allow it to handle institutions like education.
It’s a difficult balance to make, but if someone is going to actively speak out about negative trends media organizations are fostering in people, shouldn’t we start thinking about ideas to fix them? I’m not totally against the idea of some government intervention, as that could help with stopping threats like fake news, but we can think of a better approach than that.
-Jacob Runnels is a reporter for the Journal-Tribune.