---

Conclusion to a critique.

---

Where Were We?

No need to recap, it’s all there back in Part 1 – where some of the top guns in journalism assured everyone this is a time of optimism.

A good argument they offer is how much information we can now access quickly and, usually, for free.

True, but like a dishevelled scientist emerging from a laboratory and shouting “IT’S ALIVE!” – we also have a monster soon to be on the loose and out of control.

There is simply too much stuff out there. We can read any paper or watch any TV channel around the world, yet they all say pretty much the same thing. And they keep saying the same thing throughout the day.

In the press, great columnists can be read – dazzling us with their wit, wordplay and wisdom. But for every David Aaronovitch, there are 200,000 Richard Littlejohn clones. It’s rare to find a truly unique angle on anything because we have so many people churning out a constant flow of articles. Repetition is the inevitable consequence.

Charlie Brooker, in the Guardian, wrote an excellent piece on the subject: “Too much talk for one planet: why I’m reducing my word emissions“. He said: “I fail to see the point of roughly 98% of human communication at the moment”. Agreed – people need to cut back on what is being written or broadcast.

Our 24/7 news culture is in danger of tearing itself apart. Take the Royal Baby coverage in the UK on 22 July – at times too much news or was it no news? The media were left trying to fill a vacuum. Wise heads should have moved on to another news item.

The BBC’s Simon McCoy gave us his usual wisecracks during the Royal Baby event / non-event: “Plenty more to come from here of course, none of it news. But that won’t stop us, we’ll see you later.”

A true golden age would give us quality, not quantity.

The Social Network

On top of this relentless and oppressive info-deluge, we have the added ingredients of social media.

Twitter is very useful for live news events, as reporters or eye witnesses can update us in real time to what’s happening. No arguments there.

But there is something intrinsically wrong in our human DNA when a potentially worthwhile tool is sabotaged by a wave of spam, platitudes and punishingly dull commentary. Few are adding anything new to the mix. They repeat, ruin, rant or rave on every single event. Less is more.

Some journalists could use social media with a bit more finesse. We all know about the crisis in Egypt, so if all the papers tweet that news and many journalists tweet that exact same news again – it’s word pollution.

Wait… it gets worse. The younger generation of wannabe hacks are also discussing what they had for breakfast or some other trivial matter. I can’t imagine the late greats of Graham Greene, Keith Waterhouse or Christopher Hitchens resorting to such banalities.

I thought the hallmarks of good journalism were to reveal a news story that hasn’t received extensive coverage. It can be an exclusive, quirky, offbeat or something that’s slipped off the radar.

But please don’t tell me what you had for breakfast.

Decline and Fall

Like the barbarians threatening bloodshed and mayhem at the gates of Rome, the journalism industry is menaced by job cuts and reduced revenue.

The vicious bout of redundancies (“death by a thousand cuts” as others call it) means our world is a meaner and slimmer version.

In addition to this, sales figures for papers and magazines continue to fall.

On 9 August, Press Gazette released the July ABCs – these are circulation figures for the newspapers.

July saw a tiny increase due to the Royal Baby interest, but figures for ‘year-on-year change’ are down. They are all down, except the ultra-concise and inexpensive i. Papers like the FT, Daily Star, Sun and Independent have even seen double-digit drops.

For the magazines, it’s generally just as bad. On 15 August, Press Gazette published the Mag ABCs – circulation figures for the first half of 2013.

It’s a very long list. New Musical Express felt a cut of 16.4%, Nuts dropped by 34.8% and Company saw a 36.7% fall.

There were exceptions – Time Out increased by a whopping 485.8% to 305,757 readers. Probably because it went free in September 2012.

However, only 7% of Time Out’s content is paid for – meaning a very small number of contributors or journalists get paid. Sorry, but I need to eat and don’t intend to live on a park bench for the rest of my life. I’m not working for free.

All these grim statistics do not support the theory of a period of prosperity.

Life After Leveson

Back in July 2011 the Leveson Inquiry was set up to investigate “the role of the press and police in the phone-hacking scandal”.

Part 1 was published on 29 November 2012. But as the website says: “Part 2 of the Inquiry cannot commence until the current police investigations and any subsequent criminal proceedings have been completed.”

Leveson recommended the existing Press Complaints Commission be replaced by a new independent body – which could impose fines and ensure better apologies and corrections.

This subject is huge and could warrant a separate opinion piece later, but let’s focus on two things at the moment.

Firstly, let’s give a big round of applause to the editors of the British papers. We’re now in August 2013 and nothing has changed in terms of Leveson’s ideas. Eight months!

The editors have displayed adroit delaying skills, obfuscation, hardball negotiation tactics and a complete lack of respect to anyone. They really should enter the Chinese political arena where they will fit smoothly into its opaque and Machiavellian world of deceit and dilly-dallying.

The second point is that while Leveson’s recommendations continue to flounder – the public, police and politicians have altered their mindset due to the fallout from the phone-hacking scandal.

Thanks to Mickey Mouse journalists making goofy errors in the past – such as bribes and hacking – it’s made our lives much harder in the present. (And there’s me thinking they got a story down to tenacity and good investigative work.)

People were wary and distrustful of us before. But now it’s much worse. Before you could get a juicy quote from an individual or a police officer. It’s no longer that easy. Now we’re directed to a press office, where some nondescript nincompoop provides generic quotes that add nothing to a story.

This is a very worrying trend. If we’re constantly given bland statements from fearful fools, the quality of our journalism could suffer.

Accentuate the Positive

This realistic portrait may be seen by some as an overtly negative industry to be working in.

Frankly, no. The role of a journalist is still as exciting as ever. You get to chase a story, meet new people, see stuff in print and so many other things to mention. It’s just tougher to find that initial job.

Part of life is also adapting to change. These bad things – hacking, bribes, job cuts, declining sales figures – have happened. The past cannot be altered.

The world is constantly evolving and if journalism is in a wretched state now, it’s up to us to be flexible and deal with the cards we’re given. (Just wish it had been five aces.)

By all means tell me being a journalist is great, but don’t lie to me and say the industry is in a state of euphoria.

The Dreaded Sequel

It’s relatively easy to describe a situation, but I believe there are some solutions and glimmers of hope to this dark age.

Some papers have already introduced paywalls, and next month in the three-part “How to Save Journalism” report – there will be some ideas about content, design, website comments, citizen journalism, social media and more.

See… I can do happy endings.

---