Even without AI, the internet revolution has placed vast amounts of factual material in an almost instantly accessible form to huge swathes of humanity. Researching articles for publication in newspapers and periodicals has ceased to be as painstaking or time-consuming as it once was.
While it is easier to write an article that is fact-checked and accurate than it has ever been in the past, the nature of mainstream media content, coverage and output has changed radically.
Sometimes one has to wonder as to how it is that, for example, the death of a drummer who featured in a band 20 or 30 years ago seems to grab the attention of a wide variety of mainstream media editors at the same time. Particularly when the majority of news consumers would be unlikely to be able to name the dead drummer if asked as a general knowledge question on a TV quizshow. And yet the death of the drummer achieves simultaneous prominence across our newspapers and broadcast media.
Does anyone really care that much? Would the news come as a surprise to readers and viewers? Would many people feel let down if they were not alerted to the drummer’s passing?
READ MORE
In the age of internet algorithms, distinguishing between the important and the trivial seems to be down to increasingly random characteristics of social discourse.
The media’s absorption with personality could be said to be trending towards absurd narcissism. I understand that a newspaper or news broadcaster is financially limited when it comes to employing journalists to engage in shoe-leather reporting.
Right across the board, the media seem to be much more content than in the past to be passive recipients of news and comment rather than in-depth explorers of current events.
There was a time when, for instance, general election campaigns were covered in the media by means of “supplied scripts” – statements or speeches published by candidates and parties. Those days are largely gone, and they have been replaced by impromptu press conferences, where the media’s questions determine the substance of rival parties’ and candidates’ output.
There was a time, too, when political correspondents were available for a collective press briefing or able to go in person to Leinster House. It was possible to deliver a statement or reply on a face-to-face basis with experienced journalists who would exercise their own judgment as to whether coverage was or was not justified.
[ Running a newspaper is a tricky business. Jeff Bezos has made a mess of itOpens in new window ]
A problem with the online world is that it is so easy to inundate political commentators with press releases and campaigning material. The sheer volume of such material prevents journalists from even scanning, let alone considering, the merits or importance of such material.
On top of the changing nature of political reportage, some media have apparently altered their appetites for wholly different types of content.
A politician is much more likely to secure column inches in newspapers by revealing something about themselves – whether such revelations concern their physical or mental health, family relations, dietary preferences, favourite holiday destinations, choices of books or TV programmes or struggles with one form of adversity or another.
That sort of trivia often seems to trump serious political contributions. Is this part of a process of humanising politics? Or is it, in reality, lazy-minded dumbing down in our mainstream media?
I have to confess that the coverage in the Winter Olympics of hours of curling left me completely bored. The somewhat novel sight of men frantically wielding sweeping brushes wore off fairly quickly. The idea that countries such as the UK spent millions subsidising their curling competitors in pursuit of Olympic gold seems to me at any rate a big waste of money. The Latin maxim ‘de gustibus non est disputandum’ probably applies and I apologise if my views on curling as a sport cause any offence. Lawn bowling is marginally more watchable.
Likewise, the inevitable deaths of obscure drummers and keyboard players from largely forgotten bands from 20 and 30 years ago may well be matters of moment to more people than I imagine.
[ The shrinking of RTÉ: ‘It feels like an increasingly neutered organisation’Opens in new window ]
But my point is that many mainstream media are increasingly passive and increasingly addicted to personality and trivia rather than delivering what really counts as news. They resemble more and more bloated occupants of hammocks consuming junk food rather than playing an active part in the contest of ideas and policies which are central to the health of a liberal democracy.
If you want superficial entertainment instead of social discourse, you need look no further than what is available on X. A small number of keyboard warriors bravely do battle imagining themselves to be the political gladiators of our age.
In short, quality journalism needs input, analysis and judgment. We seem to be travelling in a different direction.
