The Evolution of Journalism

It was in the late 19th century that William Randolph Hearst, a mining scion, first institutionalised the notion of sensationalism in newspaper print on a mass scale, tapping into a growing market of immigrant arrivals to the United States. Inspired by Joseph Pulitzer’s early flirtations with colourful content, The New York Journal carried the catchy stories of the day — crime capers replaced op-eds, comic strips replaced investigative journalism, pictures replaced words — as the paper dumbed itself down to appeal to a wider audience. At one cent a pop for 16 pages of content, the paper was a hit, with Hearst’s corporate cynicism forever immortalised many years later in Orson Welles’ epic drama.

In his quest for journalistic dominance, Hearst recognised that compromising professionally curated content in favour of poorly researched but eyebrow-raising headlines did not hurt readership growth but in fact positively contributed to it. What’s more, replacing penetrating investigative journalists with inexperienced hacks could drive down overheads and allow his papers to be sold for cheaper, further enhancing readership — and with it, advertising revenue. When other papers caught wind of the model, a journalistic race to the bottom ensued, and condemned a generation to institutionalised disinformation.

As time passed, and readers grew tired of being let down by kitsch commentary, some individuals spotted a niche for a new model to spring up. Unencumbered from the shackles of temperamental advertising revenue, a paper that charged readers an annual subscription fee could secure the working capital it needed to employ quality journalists and deliver reliable content to discerning consumers. With the economics of journalistic integrity intact, the truth could now get in the way of a good story.

The rise of the internet has seen history repeat itself. When USA Today became the first newspaper to offer an online version of its print in 1995, the gauntlet was laid down for a new wave of journalistic chicanery and barrel-scraping. The subsequent proliferation of blogging platforms gave everyone a voice, and not always a benevolent one. Advertising revenue growth became the media’s true north once more, and with it a knife in the heart of responsible reporting.

We now find ourselves at the same inflection point that those before us experienced many decades ago, witnessing the disheartening spectacle of the Right and the Left both accusing each other of misinformation campaigns and “fake news”, stories that allegedly “break the internet” or cause a “Twitterstorm”, while traditional newspapers grapple with the existential insecurity that has led them to compromise their principles in order to compete with capital-lite, and integrity-lite, upstarts.

It is only a matter of time before the mood shifts once more as the sensationalism wears us out. Like those before us, we will once again demand more integrity from our media sources. And just like those before us, we will eventually recognise one inalienable truth:

You always get what you pay for.