---

Some in the journalism industry believe we are experiencing a golden age. An admirable attempt to be positive and different, but it’s an argument that I cannot accept. The spread of despair is not the agenda here – only a realistic assessment of the state we’re in.

---

The Happy Few

So, who are the jolly souls that wish to dispel negativity with a wave of their wordsmith wands?

No need to list all of them, it’s not a trial, but Channel 4’s Jon Snow in the UK and Slate’s Matthew Yglesias in the US are a couple of examples.

Their reasoning is all pretty similar – this is a multi-platform, digital era; social media is fantastic; news distribution is better; we have “depth and context to the news” – meaning more sources can be examined; and “almost anything you’d want to know about any subject is available at your fingertips”.

All valid points in a way, but even some of them have created problems. More on that later.

Things Fall Apart

The first issue I have is that all these contented individuals are in the upper echelons of journalism. Their jobs are safe, they have the experience and contacts. It’s in their interest to put a positive spin on things.

It’s a golden age for them and I do like to see others be successful. However, it makes sense to look around and be aware of the big picture.

These people usually offer such opinions to generate debate or promote new articles and books. The contrary view has always been the weapon of choice for columnists, as they seek to stand out from the crowd. Anybody who presents a more pragmatic viewpoint is dismissed as downbeat.

There have been very few golden ages in history where the chances of employment are ridiculously low. Savage job cuts and intense competition for a few opportunities are not the hallmarks of wonder and merriment. Even Yglesias concedes that trying to make a living is a tough battle.

Almost every week the papers carry stories about job losses, but here’s one recent example – a report from the Press Gazette about NUJ action at the Independent.

My opinion is certainly not in isolation, and as a new recruit to this profession others carry far more weight.

Voices of Others

Bob Garfield in the Guardian brilliantly refutes Yglesias’ golden age for consumers assertion with the analogy: “Yeah, sort of – in exactly the way looters enjoy an improved standard of living. Problem is, it only stays improved until the store is emptied out.”

He goes onto explain that the news industry is no longer profitable with a cool logical case of economics. It’s well worth a read.

Stephen Shepard, a former Newsweek senior editor, believes there was never a period of well-being.

I’d disagree. Perhaps I’m nostalgic for a time never experienced, but my image based on history books and first-hand accounts is somewhat different. Before the Internet, journalists would have been free of social media drivel, inane (and insane) comments on websites, corporate gobbledegook and mediocre managers with their insatiable desire for Excel sheets.

It’s a small poll, but the Overseas Press Club of America believes that 1940 to 2001 was the best time.

The latter date is important, as post-9/11 and the insidiously unpleasant Patriot Act in the US allowed American journalism to be reduced to a shadow of its former self. Hard questioning and superb investigating were ruthlessly quashed – all in the interests of ‘national security’.

Your Silent Face

I don’t think the UK has suffered as much as the US. Freedom of Information requests have produced some great stories (eg MPs’ expenses in the Telegraph) and keep politicians on their toes.

British journalists are famous for asking the awkward questions and show a distinct lack of respect… to anyone really. That said, most politicians talk to the press as know it’s necessary and useful to them at times.

However, lower down the scale, some councillors behave with astonishing arrogance. A regional daily editor told them to “stop hiding behind press offices“, while the insufferably pompous Christopher Hawtree – a Green Councillor in Brighton – disliked being approached for comments.

Who are these clowns to think they are above everyone else? The public voted them in and expect to know what is going on. If this kind of dangerous non-democratic behaviour is allowed to creep in, it’s the thin end of the wedge. People in power are answerable to the public and it’s also the duty of journalists to bring them to account.

It would be a very dark day for journalism if no one spoke to us.

The Next Time

In Part 2 there will be further analysis – the impact of the Leveson Inquiry, social media, information overload and more.

As there is a distinct lack of sweetness in these posts, and to avoid looking like an interminable doom and gloom merchant, there will also be a three-part “How to Save Journalism” piece in the near future.

Yeah, I know… the suspense is bearable.

---