when it comes to the preference for political satire and comedy, especially among younger consumers of information who enjoy the more raucous and outrageous. The appeal of authoritative and trusted news has been undermined by the powerful entertainment values of the digital culture. And not just in the English‐speaking world; in times like these, the rise of ubiquitous mockery (such as Charlie Hebdo and The Onion) is an indicator that the old approaches are insufficient, especially for younger media consumers.
In the mid‐2000s, mainstream news organizations had a haughty disregard for bloggers. But as the advertising model for traditional news organizations began to collapse and non‐traditional media began to attract larger audiences, news organizations rushed to embrace digital technology. They hoped to connect with its promise of larger (and younger) audiences. But those new audiences have not returned the eager courtship in quite the same way.
Audiences are still fragmenting, and news organizations are increasingly on the defensive when the blogosphere and partisan media accuse mainstream news of bias. However, we may now be seeing a reversal of fortunes as mainstream media organizations in North America and Europe replace old‐style advertising revenue with paid subscriptions delivered online (along with supportive banner advertising).
In 2004, Alan Rusbridger, the former editor‐in‐chief of The Guardian, predicted that online revenue would eventually surpass print advertising for all newspapers. This prediction became known as the “Rusbridger Cross.” He seems to have been proven correct. The New York Times now makes considerably more money from its online subscriptions than from advertising. But it has done this by providing a higher quality of information, especially when combined with powerful and contextual visual presentations.
Alan Rusbridger.
Source: The Guardian.
The Rise of Digital Technology and Bias
It is difficult, if not impossible, for the news‐consuming public to agree on what constitutes reliable information. That is because, in part, the news is a human endeavor and always subject to perceived imperfections and criticism. When the news was provided by fewer sources in the form of newspapers or broadcasters, allegations of bias were always part of the news landscape. But in a digital environment, where information and the responses to that information have increased, so too have accusations of bias. Journalism is not without its flaws, and reliable news organizations have had to adapt to a more raucous and rancorous environment.
Journalists are often surprised when their critics accuse them of bias. Most journalists try to give the audiences their best version of the truth, so accusations of bias are frequently rejected as a form of anti‐media bias itself.
Bias exists, of course. Sometimes it is explicit; sometimes it is subconscious. Because journalism is a human endeavor like any other, some bias is always there. The question we must ask is whether the bias is deliberate or not. If it is deliberate, why is it there and who might benefit from it? If it is subconscious, is it because of other more subtle influences on the journalists or on their media organization? And how deep does it go – is it an unconscious cultural bias or a deliberate, willful blindness?
In a democracy, the signs of news bias are often too subtle to be obvious. We may overlook these indications of bias because we may have internalized them ourselves. We might even personally share these assumptions about the way things are or ought to be. Our own biases tend to direct us toward sources of information that confirm our own points of view. That's not always a bad thing, although it can be if we remain unaware of this in ourselves. But it is more common than we think. In our quest for news literacy, we need to be aware of how our own biases and even prejudices affect our thinking.
In the digital news environment, the public has many more opportunities to select what it feels is important or distracting, depending on the individual needs of the moment. The Internet gives the public the means to comment on the news in a way that was previously more limited to writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Today, the flow of commentary inside and outside of news organizations continues unabated. This can be a better way for citizens to let their concerns be seen and heard.
The news is seen as a way of assuring the public that issues are being addressed so citizens can make informed decisions about personal safety. It allows for a greater sense of security and community. And it can also be a way of holding authorities and institutions to account.
The downside of this flow of continuously aggravating information is a sense of perpetual, public grievance in which the Internet can act as an accelerant, raising both tensions and unrealistic expectations. Selecting less serious content as a break from the constant flow of grim news is also now valued by consumers and producers of news.
We MUST Share and Receive Information
We mentioned the motivations of news to “surprise” and “delight.” There is also a universal need to share and receive news simply because it makes us feel empowered and connected to our communities. At a 2018 conference, Facebook's president, Sean Parker, revealed that sharing social media content and clicking on apps causes the brain to release a rush of dopamine – a hormone and neurotransmitter that affects a person’s sense of pleasure and reward. In short, the Internet makes us feel good. In some part, that is what has hooked us on the Internet.
It's not all a deterministic stimulus and response; there is still the “surprise” aspect of news motivation.
The news, especially reliable, trustworthy news, has as its main purpose the goal of acting as an early warning system for the public. This can be everything from a weather forecast to an impending disaster. It can be a newspaper that carries with it an editorial position about a dangerous politician. Or a helpful bit of advice to avoid a traffic jam on a highway on your way home after work.
In this instance, the news can both “surprise” and “delight.” The public consumes the news for the purpose of knowing what is happening around them – in their communities, in their countries, and elsewhere. This connectivity function of the news allows the public to share events and understanding with people to whom they may have had little exposure or knowledge. Do we know what life is like in Yemen? Can we understand the plight of the people there? Why should we know or care? The news – done properly –helps us understand and empathize with the plight of others. It can also serve to illustrate our own plight and condition.
The news is not one single approach or attitude. It tends to provide a palette of ideas, investigations, and entertainments. A mass‐market approach, such as in a daily newspaper or daily broadcast, provides a bit of everything in order to appeal to the broadest (and most lucrative) audience. In the digital age, we are able to specialize in our tastes: one medium for hard news, another for humor, still another for sports and entertainment. A diet of one dish alone may be what some people prefer. Most people prefer a more varied approach.
The Dominance of Images
We need to be aware that the power of visuals remains, even in an age of social media. Most people (especially older ones) still rely on TV news, especially for local news and information. YouTube has a similar appeal for younger audiences.
This is the implicit strength and the inherent weakness of visual
