Optimism, as the playwright Heiner Müller – known for his aphoristic witticisms – once said, is a lack of information. Pessimism, one might counter, is a lack of ideas. And yet: when one realises what the ongoing media revolution means for independent journalism, it is difficult at present not to join in with the already widespread doomsday predictions, not simply to continue feeding into the narrative of decline.
In her last major television interview in 1973, the Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt said: “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen.” Her warning remains as relevant as ever. For what Arendt calls the free press is currently under enormous pressure at this juncture in the history of the media and humanity, including here in this country. The fact is: today, investigative journalism is emerging in a world that is increasingly hostile to both journalism and the pursuit of truth.
Independent media are being harassed
Three major trends are at play in the background. Political In many European countries and in the USA, we are witnessing the rise of populists and extremists who are doing their utmost to harass, attack and demonise the independent media. Technologically The AI revolution has long been ubiquitous. The result: business models of independent media outlets that were only just managing to survive are collapsing overnight. And gigantic amounts of AI rubbish in the form of fake videos and fake texts (technical term: AI Slop) are flooding the internet, making it difficult to find one’s way around, and causing journalistic content to get lost in the din.
Journalism is now forced to play by the rules of a tabloid-style attention lottery, rules dictated by Big Tech companies with their algorithms designed to stir up controversy and play on emotions
Economic The Big Tech entrepreneurs – who, with the help of the major platforms, have long since gained control over the key distribution channels for information – are dragging serious journalism into a ruinous battle for autonomy. For journalism must now play by the rules of a tabloid-style attention lottery, rules dictated by Big Tech companies through their algorithms – which are designed to stir up controversy and play on emotions – and which they vary as they see fit. At the same time, the advertising markets – once a key source of funding for journalism – are drying up.
Just one figure: last year, three companies – Google, Meta and Amazon – accounted for more than half of all global advertising revenue in the digital market. Added to this is the fact that, amidst the general turmoil of the crisis, many people are suffering from an overload of world events. They are turning away, switching off, searching – sometimes desperately, sometimes out of sheer annoyance – for digital detox remedies and oases of soul-nourishment far removed from the news. In times of widespread anxiety about the future, this is entirely understandable, yet ultimately disastrous. For how is a genuine scandal – think only of Donald Trump’s mafia-like behaviour, but also of an explosive local revelation – ever going to make an impact if, out of sheer fear of crisis and disgust at the bullshit, nobody wants to look or listen anymore?
A three-pronged effort is needed
And yet: pessimism is a waste of time, a pointless drain on mental energy, always in danger of turning into a self-fulfilling prophecy. For what else is there to do, why bother getting involved at all, if the general course of events seems as dark and bleak as an immutable fate for humanity? Resignation and escapism then seem like clever solutions for stressed individuals, but they are harmful to democratic coexistence and social engagement.
My argument is therefore that – especially now, especially today – we need a vision of media literacy that involves a three-pronged effort. Firstly, we need an educational initiative that is in step with the digital age. Just as environmental awareness emerged in the 1970s, a kind of… should now develop (and this is only possible as a joint initiative involving schools, universities, adult education centres, etc.) in response to the littering and plundering of the journalistic world outside. Public awareness to develop an appreciation of the value and vulnerability of the public sphere, understood as the intellectual lifeblood of a liberal democracy.
Secondly, robust regulation of large platforms is essential. The various EU initiatives, such as the Digital Services Act, which urge big tech platforms to combat disinformation more effectively, are certainly a step in the right direction. The only question is whether they can actually be implemented amidst the geopolitical upheavals and the rift between the US and Europe.
I maintain that the investigative journalism of the future will be dialogue-based and transparent – or it will not exist at all.
Finally, and thirdly, journalism too should change as we move towards a society where people are media-literate. I maintain that the enlightened journalism of the future will be dialogical and transparent – or it will not exist at all. In a truly media-literate society, readers are, even more so than before, accomplices, critics, companions and dialogue partners on an equal footing. They are catalysts in a vast, vibrant, never-ending conversation between the editorial team and those who, in a bygone media era, would have been called the audience. And who, today, have long since been broadcasting, posting and publishing content themselves.
The imperative of dialogic journalism
My point is this: in the fight against Big Tech giants, in the defence of independent reporting, and in the drive to foster media literacy across society as a whole, – a new pact is needed between the ‘fourth estate’ of traditional journalism and the ‘fifth estate’ of the networked masses, the audience that has come to wield media power. We need stable relationships based on trust, mutual inspiration and transparency – not least by editorial teams explaining their work much more thoroughly than before in reports and debates, in blogs and through direct engagement, guided by the imperative of dialogic journalism: “Give your readers every conceivable opportunity to assess the quality of the information you provide!”
Once again: keeping abreast of the laws governing one’s own sector is now an unavoidable second job for media professionals. This means identifying the costs and pitfalls of investigative journalism. It means being open about one’s own mistakes, whilst also making it clear in principle that without vibrant journalism, corruption within a community rises, civic engagement demonstrably declines, and populist simplifiers and PR specialists – who simply want to sell – become more powerful.
And what if it does go wrong, if the deafening din and synthetic clamour of AI videos drown out the diverse voices of authentic media and real people? Then, until that point actually arrives, the Enlightenment optimist and defender of a democratic public sphere will at least have led a better life and, if nothing else, not prematurely drowned their own commitment in general pessimism. And that is a value in itself, isn’t it?
Bernhard Pörksen is one of the country’s best-known media scholars. He works at the University of Tübingen and conducts extensive research in Silicon Valley. His latest book is *Listening: The Art of Opening Oneself to the World* (Hanser).