Is journalism returning to its origins?
Many people imagine that journalism has fallen from some golden age of objectivity into today’s landscape of partisan media outlets, influencer commentators, and algorithmic outrage.
But that’s not quite its origin story.
As I wrote in my Skeptic column, journalism did not begin as a neutral profession dedicated to informing the public. It began as a political tool.
The earliest newspapers were openly partisan enterprises. Publishers often had explicit ideological allegiances and, in many cases, direct ties to political parties. Their purpose wasn’t to relay facts (or even turn a profit). It was to persuade, mobilize, and shape public opinion. Journalists at the time were active participants in political battles, not detached observers. This wasn’t a secret. It was the standard.
Then, the focus turned to a more commercial endeavor, and thus the late nineteenth century became the age of yellow journalism. Newspapers began to compete aggressively for readers through scandal, emotion, exaggeration, and spectacle. Anything to get your attention and to persuade you to part with a few coins. Inexpensive newspapers sought to gain bigger audiences so that they could sell advertising rather than rely on wealthy political patrons.
It wasn’t until journalism schools had appeared that the standard began to change. Journalism became a more professional endeavour. In fact, previously, contributors were often printers, politicians, lawyers, philosophers, businessmen, and clergy. But in the early twentieth century we saw the development of editorial standards, ethical codes, and professional association. Reporters were taught verification, sourcing, fairness, and the separation of news from opinion.
Objectivity was obviously never fully achieved, but it was an aspirational norm which journalistic practices would help maintain.
These professional norms distinguished journalism from political activism or pure entertainment.
But today, we see a certain regression back to its origins. Many media outlets indeed act as political tools, and with the incentive structure being what it is, we are also seeing an increase in infotainment. The attention economy rewards sensationalist slop, which is cheaper, easier, and quicker to produce. It is rewarded far more than thoughtful, investigative articles that require more resources to create. Opinion-based pieces often outperform those that require reporting. Identity, certainty, and outrage are favored over nuance, depth, and accuracy.
That creates an incentive gap.
News organizations face collapsing advertising revenue. Social media platforms reward emotional engagement over careful reporting. Independent creators often succeed by cultivating audiences that say the things that they like to hear vs anchoring in fact-based reporting. And even with traditional outlets, subscribers tend to support them based on political alignment.
And that’s the thing with a subscriber-based model. Financial survival depends on subscribers who expect a particular worldview to be reinforced, which can shape editorial decisions.
We are also seeing—particularly as institutional trust has eroded—many readers and viewers shift towards individuals rather than newspapers. Whether podcasters, influencers, YouTubers, or fellow Substackers, they seemed to have gain much influence in recent years.
In a number of cases, we’ve seen journalists build their audiences in traditional spaces, and then move to their own platforms, where they far outearn their previous salaries. But again, their work tends to be openly ideological and personality driven, rather than objective reporting.
Ultimately, we are back where we started. Journalism is about influencing people rather than informing them.
The question is: how do we create economic conditions where neither ideology nor sensationalism are the key drivers?
Ideological capture exists across the political spectrum, but the structural problem is even more significant in my view.
If speed is rewarded more than verification. Engagement more than accuracy. And slop over thoughtful, research-intensive pieces…how can good journalism ever thrive in the marketplace of ideas?
If quality content costs far more to produce but brings in less income, how can professional standards survive? Not if every incentive pushes in the opposite direction.
The future of journalism isn’t just dependant on finding good journalists, it means figuring out how to redesign the systems within which they operate.
And if I had the solution, I’d be shouting it from the hilltops. But, alas, I’m not even sure if there is one. Are you?
Want to support my work? Here’s how you can help:
Consider becoming a subscriber (and enjoy a week of premium for free!)
Share my posts and Substack with people who might enjoy it. Liking and commenting also helps more people discover my essays!
Make a one-off donation via Buy Me a Coffee
Pick up a copy of my book, No Apologies: How to Find and Free your Voice in the Age of Outrage
Prestige reporting being a job bestowed upon the scions of elites, systematic bias towards the left, low effort reporting, immediate news cycle, and left and right wing infotainment products posing as journalism are the biggest problems.
I am torn about how to engage people from a centrist perspective, because we have to acknowledge a systematic left wing bias in media and institutions. Even Fox News occasionally caves to the left, because many reporters are closet left, and the advertisers demand it. There still is loads of right wing trash on Fox, but this is De facto dismissed by left wing elites. It's important to acknowledge when conservatives are staying the obvious. That opens us to criticize the pathologies that are more specific to the right wing.
There's still a market for top-quality journalism, but it's expensive to produce - and are there still enough people left willing to pay for it? Newspapers and magazines in most countries used to make most of their money from advertising, but that revenue model is of course mostly dead. Most remaining "quality" media have relatively soft paywalls that allow non-subscribers to read the headlines and some free articles, and often to circumvent paywalls entirely through clever bypass tricks. An interesting outlier in the business is The Economist, which has 1.3 million paid subscribers around the world who are still willing to pay some of the highest yearly subscription prices of any publication, since their readers believe they are getting critical insights and analysis every week that they can't get anywhere else. That's a standard few media outlets can aspire to match at this stage.