The current state of Australian journalism is in a bit of a negative place. Whether it be our nation's press freedom being slowly chipped away, and in turn threatening our democracy's ability to provide the necessary checks and balances, or Australian growing distrust and distaste for consuming news. The changes journalism is experiencing although not new has been supercharged with the advent of social media. The industry has seen a major digital disruption
What does this mean for the average media consumer? how has social media changed the Australian news-media landscape and can either really exist without each other?
What has changed?
The late nineteenth century was the era of newspapers and was a time that valued the press over any source of media for the masses. The radio would be ushed in decades later and this was long before television was even a thought in the minds of everyday Australians. This was the time of the newspaper industry.
Australian mass media specialist Rodney Tiffen has chronicled the Australian Media landscape and reported in the book ‘Media and Communications in Australia’ that even from the beginning of the twentieth century a shift started to occur and “by all the most tangible measures newspapers are in relative and, increasingly, in absolute decline” even at this point in time.
It has been particularly felt in recent years the level of crisis the news media is experiencing and the sustainability of newspapers, just in the last 10 years has seen mass redundancies and advertising revenue continued to fall. In practice, the news media being dominated by the newspaper industry has been continually deteriorating over the last century, with the press playing a much smaller role within the mass media.
By the 1950s and 60s, the most important source of mass media was a spot being taken over by the movie industry, radio as a source of news, and even early iterations of television. By the 1980’s necessity for ‘evening newspapers’ began to be supplanted by the ’24-hour newspapers’ and from the 1980’s continuing till 2007 saw the number of newspapers sold daily within Australia being halved. The decade also saw the introduction of SBS, Australia going from being fairly local to the world stage and having the ability to be appreciated by international audiences. All of this lead up to the ultimate collapse of revenue provided by advertising which for much of the news industries' existence had been supporting its journalism. Mariam Cheik-Hussein describes in her long read of ‘A New Revenue Model For Publishers’, that the arrival of the internet as a digital disrupter which forced a change in the system. Finally, the “classified advertising was unbundled from newspapers” and the advent of this new online space would mean a broader reach of audiences by advertisers for much less money.
Tiffen describes one of the possible positive perspectives that could be taken in his chapter, was that the task of the failing print news media in free fall was simply transferred over to the online arena. This even accounts for lost means for income as this new shift will be creating a fresh mode for production and delivery that was lost in the industry's deterioration. But what will continue to remain the same are the basic and “essential functions of newspaper journalism”. He recounts one of the many perspectives shared by those who were experiencing the news industry changes during the early 2000s. The former editorial director of News Limited Campbell Reid was quoted as saying while discussing what future lies ahead for journalism, that he was very eager for the days of the printing press to be number, a time when…
“this great weight of doom slips off our shoulders and we go and compete on whatever platform the audience wants”
This kind of sentiment that Tiffen is showing, is communicating a common idea during this time of growing possibility. Essentially that the rise of online news will be beneficial for journalists as much of the money needed to fund the creation and dissemination of news will be reduced and provide a way for news to be more accessible, produced much faster, and have the ability to adapt in an expedited news cycle. This has been evident with the ACCC’s 2020 report on digital platforms where traditional print media has seen an increase in the number of readers seeking out the website and app editions of the paper. The transition from print to online has, as a result, diminished the sales from readers of physical newspapers. What has continued even though this internet digital disruption through to social media, is consumers' going distrust in the institution of news journalism, particularly from print.
Tiffen presents data from back in 2006 which show the number of people who state “they don’t trust TV journalists to tell the truth” was at 53 per cent while a greater number of people “don’t trust newspaper journalists”, at a rate of 63 per cent. This trend has continued with a recent report by the University of Canberra on Digital News, which found that in 2020, the trust in print journalism has fallen further to only 39 per cent and TV news to only 47 per cent. Meaning the role of newspaper journalism being the most trusted and valued source has well and truly passed that this point. It is important to note that despite this growing distrust, what isn’t always known is as Rodney Tiffen states “most often newspapers play the pivotal role in setting the agenda that the other media follow. In the news mix, newspapers do the heavy lifting”. So despite the current climate being mistrustful of the source, readers still preferencing broadcast television over newspapers, and a declining market, newspaper journalism still plays a vital role and has survived over the years in the Australian mass media industry. So this begs the question, is social media the final straw?
The social media dilemma
Despite maybe being a bitter pill to swallow for some, Google and social media companies like Facebook are intertwined with our news. Readers are in higher volumes leaving the traditional forms of distribution behind in favour of the newer online newspaper model. Despite these consumers’ exposure to traditional dissemination being in decline, coming across them in alternate locations is starting to climb.
The ACCC’s 2020 Digital News Report claims that the majority of users of Facebook seek a “general social media experience”, not necessarily on the platform with the purpose of searching for news either in a specific newspaper or on a general news topic. However, the rate for incidental exposure to news on social media has been on the rise.
A 2018 study examined how social media is increasing how often we are incidentally exposed to media on platforms like YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook. The study found that more than 50 per cent of the students interviewed had experienced this incidental consumption of news whilst on social media platforms. There were a few reasons for this occurring, including that newspapers would have an active social media account so people would often follow, but the major explanation was that stories would be shared by their followers or friends on the platforms. This is what the study refers to as ‘opinion leaders’, which primarily are users that are more active on social media, often bringing shared news to the attention of others and influencing the interpretation of that news. This rising incidental exposure may also be from increased news sharing generally being performed on social media, as Australia saw a 5 per cent increase as reported by the University of Canberra study.
This claim of increasing incidental exposure was echoed by the ACCC who noted that “Social networks are definitely emerging as spaces where deliberate and incidental news consumption coexist. It is also clear that the news shared in young persons’ feeds serves to widen their scope of information, in that they unintentionally come across news”. So, a benefit of this incidental exposure is that news confined to traditional print media or even online print media would have been far less likely to be seen by the young people, but social media has provided a platform for news that this market might have overlooked had it not been there.
This is not to say that this incidental exposure is not without problems. These posts that users are incidentally viewing are at the mercy of the algorithms that are at the heart of social media platforms. As the 2018 study learned, even though there is a level of influence that consumers have on what kind of news seen on their social media feeds, “this control is subject to (and to a degree limited by) the operation of algorithms”. This is is an important point because of the apathy and growing negativity towards news in Australia. This is essentially showing that even we aren't seeking news from a social media source, it is highly likely we as users will be consuming in some capacity from our social media feeds. What should be considered is whether we as Australian news consumers care where our news comes from?
Echo Chambers and Filter-Bubbles
The study from the University of Canberra has found that despite television still being the most used source of general news at 63 per cent, its popularity is in decline. Since 2019, newspapers, magazines, and radio as forms of traditional news media have decreased. Concurrently online news has plateaued and social media usage has continued to rise (2019 with a rate of 46% and 2020 increasing to 52%). Australians are still seeking their news from a variety of places, but what has emerged is a trend where consumers are more interested in supporting their worldview. This new media landscape for journalists is more and more catering to ‘selective exposure’ AKA echo chambers. This is the idea that social media users choose news that supports and reinforces their worldview either due to having similar online habits and interests to their followers/friends, or alternately the platform's algorithm has learned from the user's responses. The idea of a person having a filter bubble feeds off this last point, the ACCC report refers to this as users who are exposed to content by the social media platforms algorithm that is consistent with their interests and ‘devoid of attitude-challenging content’.
Data on how much of the population abides by this behaviour was detailed by Canberra University’s report, finding that 54 per cent of people who seek news favour impartiality in the news. In contrast, 19 per cent were apart of this category of people who want their worldview to be unchallenged, and when it comes to news consumers primarily from social media, 24 per cent were also most probably seeking to confirm their own views. This concept of the filter bubble and echo chamber most acutely affects younger people, as Gen Z has been found to receive 50 per cent of its news exclusively from Facebook. This is ultimately dangerous because although it is not yet known what the true effects these concepts have, there is fear amongst academics that they are endangering the diversity of news for consumers to have available, and how credible the information being spread is. The ACCC report states that this is because echo chambers “promote the quick and effective dissemination of false and unreliable information, as users are more likely to willingly trust the content that they access in such an environment”.
Algorithms changing the game…for everyone
Social media has become intertwined in how news media is produced and distributed. The data produced by the consumers on these platforms is then captured by the algorithms of the site, but this technology is not in the power of either the users of these platforms or even by the journalists or news groups producing content. The power lies with the Social Media companies.
Although there are notable differences in how Millennials use social media to the newest generation, Gen Z, both are a generation that is literate in the norms of social media and technology. And as a result, they are much more able to recognise if something is looking slightly dubious in its legitimacy. However, algorithms are making this harder, as the purpose of these algorithms is to work to promote what the technology sees as valuable
This is the case with a 2017 incident involving William Shatner, star of the 1960’s Star Trek franchise. The actor began tweeting about the group Autism Speaks, which is an organisation that has shared false declarations, believing vaccines are the cause for children having autism. These controversial tweets garnered much attention including that of Dr. David Gorski, who works in Detroit as an oncologist. He attempted to engage Shatner through twitter and inform him that Austism Speaks not only falsely claims to be primarily for raising awareness, performing research and providing outreach for those with autism, but actually sees the disorder as something that needs to be cured. Combined with their misleading information alleging that vaccines cause autism. Shatner in reaction to Gorski’s explanation began looking online for who Gorski was, when Google, under the doctor’s name, provided the first search result of TruthWiki, a conspiracy-theory based site. Shatner shared these online websites on Twitter, prompting Gorski to ask why had he looked at the doctors Wikipedia page. Shatner then tweeted that what had appeared higher in the online search results has been the article from TruthWiki as opposed to the legitimate Wikipedia entry, sharing a photo of his search results.
Konrad Lischka (Project lead for the Ethics of Algorithms) and Christian Stöcker (Professor of Digital Communication) have written about how this incident with Shatner is indicative of a larger problem these social media and search engine algorithms share, that when consumers are attempting to be well informed of the news the technology shifts the emphasis to ‘relevance’ over the well-researched and reliable. Lischka and Stöcker have recommendations for how algorithms can best serve users and promote much more diverse ‘relevant’ content in the social media space. What our existing system of interdependence between social media and journalism already experiences is the categorizing and individual dispensing of content through algorithms. Lischka and Stöcker advocate that transparency in this system will be of great benefit for journalists and social media news consumers, but the operation of algorytums needs to:
- Make platforms and their impacts more open to external researchers.
- Promote diversity among algorithmic processes.
- Establish a code of ethics for developers.
- Make users more aware of the mechanisms now being used to influence public discourse are essential.
Developments in AI
Algorithms have become a part of most Australians daily lives, whether that be in finding the lowest price and fastest way home when using a ride-share or help consumers when online shopping. This AI technology is not limited to the various social media platforms Australians use every day.
There are plenty of future possibilities of where algorithms could be headed beyond what we are currently experiencing, and many of these innovations lie in the journalism industry.
Automated writing may seem futuristic, but the technology is already being used in the production of articles within mainstream news and major media outlets have created their own on-site AI. Australian media hasn't yet produced this technology, but soon may follow in the footsteps of international news organisations like the BBC, which has the news aggregator ‘Juicer’. This kind of technology is valuable for consumers as information can be distributed in realtime, which is important in the face of an emergency. The AI is able to produce these automated writing samples through the data provided to them by the news organisations. This technology is at no risk of being a true threat to the role journalists have as the AI has no real ability to produce work with much analysis or creativity.
Another development in AI has been in the arrival of click-bait. The best example of this kind of site is Buzzfeed, producing articled which are funded with ‘programmatic advertising’. The algorythum is fed data on what consumers have been responding to and make money based on CPC or cost-per-click. Although the kinds of articles that implement clickbait as a tactic, are often considered trash content and fairly behind the times of what is popular, the pervasiveness of this technology has permeated into even mainstream articles. Reputable journalists have been in a way forced to implement this kind of clickbait tactic in order to gain more attention on social media, as this is what the algorithm favours.
One of the unintentional benefits algorithms have provided for in Australian journalism is to do with Australia’s lack of media diversity. Despite the many issues social media has caused for journalists, these social media platforms are often in the habit of changing their algorithms as a way to improve the user's experience and generate more engagement. As a result of these constantly changing algorithms, much of the media has been theoretically on a level playing field, which in Australia particularly is helpful due to our countries lack of media diversity. However, new legislation might be threatening this.
News Media Bargaining Code….too good to be true?
The code was developed by the ACCC on behalf of the Australian government in an attempt to address the ‘bargaining power imbalances’ that digital platforms such as Google and Facebook have over the Australian news media. The new legislation could force Google and Facebook to have to make deals for payment to the Australian media.
An important point that was made by the University of Canberra report was that “social media users are least likely to pay for news”, so it is understandable that with this market of consumers increasing, the likelihood of even less money is possible. From this, it makes sense why the ACCC recommended that companies like Facebook and Google must pay. Also, it's not as if anyone is disputing that conglomerates like Google have too much power. Only recently the US justice department has filed an anti-trust suit against Google, as they have recognised the kind of monopoly the search engine holds. But it is hard to ignore that this new legislation would be benefiting an individual with a similarly powerful monopoly within the Australian media.
MEAA, which is the union representing working journalists, has raised some concerns with this new legislation. They first question how will Google and Facebook be charged for the use of media content? Will this money reach those creating the content, or end up in the hands of media conglomerates?
The second major question is why Australia’s national broadcasters, ABC and SBS, were excluded from the proposed legislation? The ABC has not been granted permission to charge for its content, which the “MEAA assume that this position has been arrived at for political reasons”. As the national broadcaster is unable to make money, what is meant to be a neutral source must turn its agenda in favour of the government to protect its remaining budget. The MEAA argues that this does nothing for media diversity.
There is so much that could be discussed in regards to Australia’s issues with media diversity, which will simply not be covered here. But essentially it is hard to discuss journalism in Australia without mentioning the elephant in the room. Rupert Murdoch and News Corp. It is a force that has loomed over the Australian News industry for decades and has recently become a topic for discussion with the calls for a Royal Commission its influence and level of power it possesses over the countries media. This something that must be pointed out when you then look at the introduction of this News Media Bargaining code.
What was meant when referring to interdependence is that for a long time the relationship between social media and journalism was out pure survival for the latter. And although this is still an unbalanced relationship, this partnership isn’t going away anytime soon, as both entities are finding a way independent of each other to coexist. Social media is fighting its only problems with misinformation meaning sites like Facebook are walking away from news being the primary focus of its platform, while journalism is finding its footing in the social media landscape.
This article has been examining the ways in which social media has been connected with and affected Australian journalism. The News Media Bargaining code had provided key observations of the current climate of journalism as well as key observations and recommendations going forward. If the proposed changes for Google and Facebook go ahead, this could be the next great digital disruption.
