Senior VP, Chief Human Resources Officer & Chief Compliance Officer, Altria Group Inc
"How the Digital Revolution Upended Journalism" Charles Whitaker, Hayek Lecture Series
On February 17, 2020, Charles Whitaker delivered, "Conflict and Crisis: How the Digital Revolution Upended Journalism and Democracy," as part of the Hayek Lecture Series. The digital revolution upended the media paradigm in ways that have both advanced and harmed society as we knew it. On the one hand, it democratized the production and dissemination of content, nullifying the influence of gatekeepers who once controlled the flow of information in print and across airwaves. But it also enflamed our tribal passions, allowing us to burrow into echo chambers that confirm our biases and stoke our...
About Charles Whitaker
On February 17, 2020, Charles Whitaker delivered a lecture titled "Conflict and Crisis: How the Digital Revolution Upended Journalism and Democracy" as part of the Hayek Lecture Series. Whitaker, who described himself as a "recovering magazine editor" rather than a scholar, discussed how the digital revolution democratized content production and dissemination while also enabling echo chambers and partisan media. He attributed the rise of hyper-partisan media in part to the Reagan administration's elimination of the Fairness Doctrine. Whitaker also stated that legacy media was "complicit in its own demise" by resisting digital adaptation and that the loss of local newspapers has harmed democracy by removing the watchdog function of the press. Whitaker noted that about 225 counties in the U.S. have no daily newspaper, meaning no one is chronicling those communities or holding local government accountable. He argued that the media business historically sold access to audiences rather than information, and that digital advertising's lower cost-per-click made the old exposure model unsustainable. Whitaker expressed optimism about the future of journalism, citing Medill's centennial class and the dynamic opportunities available to new journalists.
Transcript (31 segments)
C
Charles Whitaker0:11
I always start with a disclaimer: I am not a scholar nor an academic. I am really a recovering magazine editor. I have never mastered the performative aspects of the job. I am a terrible lecturer. When I do these presentations, I beg the indulgence of the audience and say we're going to try to make this as interactive as possible. Consider this a graduate seminar on journalism in the 21st century. Feel free to chime in. I am perfectly comfortable throwing away the PowerPoint and talking about anything else.
U
Unknown3:28
I think there's an element of it's nonfiction writing, usually shorter, there's usually some sort of time relevance to it.
You should distinguish between reporting and commenting. It should be clear that this is commentary and not editorialized writing. He or she is not being the honest broker in the middle reporting objectively.
In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, there is a distinction between reporter and commentator, but in Italy there is none. That is something I really hate.
A story should be told in a clear, concise manner, even if it has to be complex.
C
Charles Whitaker5:22
My definition of journalism is the distribution of factual information that chronicles or comments on our lifetimes, trends, and events. The mission of journalism is to hold a mirror up to society, help us see ourselves, help us understand the events that have taken place. For me, it includes not only legacy media like the New York Times and The Washington Post, but also new media like BuzzFeed and Slate, and opinionated publications like Breitbart News and The Drudge Report.
U
Unknown6:39
Is the morning television show where a group of women sit around talking about everything from makeup to events of the day journalism?
C
Charles Whitaker7:14
If it is based on background research and reportage, it can be journalism. If it is a spur-of-the-moment television commentary show, that is not journalism. Television is first and foremost entertainment. Its primary purpose is to entertain.
U
Unknown7:45
Television is a more effective platform for debate than the New York Times in some instances, because of the discussion that happens when politicians are there and factual information is transmitted. At that moment, entertainment and journalism intersect.
C
Charles Whitaker8:41
I would not call The View a news program, but there is a moment in it where journalism happens. As for 'Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,' it is as good as investigative journalism as you will find in the New York Times, Mother Jones, or The Atlantic. It is absolutely phenomenal work. He does not profess to be a journalist, but that show is doing some fairly good journalistic work.
Despite the doom and gloom, I am actually very excited about journalism right now. Google says 90% of the data produced by humankind was created in the past two years. We are telling stories in text, video, audio, and interactive graphs and charts. That makes the production of journalism vibrant and exciting, much better than when I entered the field.
U
Unknown11:11
Does that mean all the content, including tweets and Facebook posts, is included in that 90% figure?
C
Charles Whitaker11:21
Yes, it includes all of that. There is a lot of stuff folded into that figure.
U
Unknown11:38
Would a Google Book be the equivalent of a book?
C
Charles Whitaker11:48
I suppose that is true. Would I call Rush Limbaugh a journalist? There may be some journalism that happens within his show, but journalists operate with a set of standards and practices that people in the entertainment business are not bound to. I hold the title of journalist a little more sacred than journalism itself. But I think it is exciting that these people are sometimes doing something akin to journalism.
What is the problem? Why are we so upset? We have lost over 2,000 American newspapers in the past 15 years. Over 1,500 counties now have only a weekly paper, meaning lots of news is going uncovered. Penelope Abernathy at UNC is chronicling the accelerated decline of local news.
U
Unknown13:50
Do you mean in general or just not in print?
C
Charles Whitaker14:10
Digital papers are trying to fill that void, but there is no one on the ground. In many places, there is no news at all, either print or digital. When they are covered digitally, it is by an entity far removed from the county.
U
Unknown14:40
Has it disappeared with time, or was it never there?
C
Charles Whitaker14:44
They have disappeared. Those newspapers are going out of business at a rapid pace. When we lose local media, we lose the watchdog function. In Chicago, both dailies are struggling. For a period, there was no education reporter, and a school superintendent forged a $23 million sweetheart deal with her former employer, taking a $2.3 million kickback. That was only uncovered by a small nonprofit with a four-person staff. We are losing the day-to-day coverage of local news and the ins and outs of local government, which hurts democracy. We also lose the ability to see the full picture. In the absence of local media, we burrow into echo chambers that create greater balkanization and fail to challenge our assumptions. We become more susceptible to fake news.
Newspapers have been losing readership for over 30 years, but they did not respond because they were still incredibly profitable, with 20% profit margins. Unlike the recording industry, which quickly switched from vinyl to CDs, newspapers were incredibly resistant to letting go of their broken business model. In media, we sell access to audiences—the exposure business model. We produce the thing expensively and give it away to attract eyeballs, then sell those eyeballs to advertisers.
Early American media was highly partisan and designed for an elite audience. In the early 19th century, Benjamin Day created the penny press, giving newspapers away cheaply and having advertisers pay the bulk. Journalism schools began to professionalize and codify a code of ethics. Television challenged print, and the FCC imposed the Fairness Doctrine, requiring broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints. The Reagan administration eliminated it, which led to the hyper-partisan media we have today.
U
Unknown26:38
Perhaps they are reluctant to let go of print because of people like me who like the optics of paper.
C
Charles Whitaker27:14
I would love to think they care, but it is not just that. In print, there is a halo effect for advertisers, but online, ads are annoying. Craigslist decimated classified ads, which were like found money for publishers. Google Ads provide better data—advertisers know when you are searching for a car, so they reach a motivated consumer. They can track you all the way to purchase. The ROI on digital advertising is much greater, and the exposure model no longer works. Coupons were also huge revenue, but big-box stores, Amazon, and Craigslist did away with them.
Legacy media was complicit in its own demise. People romanticize Woodward and Bernstein and the good old days, but newsrooms have never been as diverse as they should be, and we have always presented an elitist view. Journalists are less religious, less patriotic, and more educated than the general public. We have not been transparent about our processes. We give content away for almost nothing, and people do not value journalism. The digital revolution exploited that. We also have fake news, which contaminates the digital ecosystem. Algorithms target us with messages based on our preferences, and fake news calcifies our positions, making compromise and governance impossible. Digital media thrives on conflict, crisis, and chaos because they equal clicks. Advertisers pay by the click, but at a penny per click, it is not a sustainable business model.
Can media be saved?
U
Unknown40:17
I am pessimistic. The talent is not going to run to this career because there is no compensation.
C
Charles Whitaker40:28
That is a challenge. But our students are actually doing well. The best metaphor is Clay Shirky's: we are in that horrible hundred years between the invention of the printing press and when we figured out how to monetize it. I do not think it will take that long. To be a journalist now, you need to be more dynamic. You must be camera-ready, able to write, shoot, edit video, develop a website, and maybe know some coding. The tools needed are far more than before.
U
Unknown43:11
We need to rebuild trust and create more creative business models like subscriptions and memberships.
C
Charles Whitaker43:23
Yes, many are relying on billionaires like Jeff Bezos or foundations like ProPublica, but that is still a third-party business model. We have done a terrible job of promoting the importance of a free press. It should not be saved if the public is not taught to value the product. They must be willing to pay more. When I was in college, Time magazine cost almost $200 a year at the student rate. Now I get it for almost nothing. You cannot expect people to value something if you slash prices constantly. We need people to pay more or to subsidize those who cannot afford it.
I see reasons to be excited. The lower costs of production mean fewer gatekeepers and a lower barrier to entry, allowing authentic voices from communities. Media literacy will help people discern quality. There are also more outlets seeking new stories. Medill turns 100 next year. Of our 183 students, maybe 30% will become journalists. They will be entering a dynamic and exciting field.