Democracy is threatened when the media is digging its own grave

In my work as a communications consultant, I quite often meet people in leading positions who say they don't trust journalists. This mistrust is usually based on the fact that they feel they have been misquoted or that something they have said has been taken out of context to suit the journalist's agenda. This is not exactly a new phenomenon. The media has long been accused of splicing the truth a little or selecting facts to make the story stick. What is relatively new, however, is that the value of speaking to the media is increasingly being questioned - both by company representatives and politicians.

The rise of social and other digital media has meant that every individual has had an opportunity to make their voice heard. This is fundamentally something very positive. But traditional media being stripped of their information monopoly has also led to a hardening of the media climate. The revenue model for traditional media is threatened as a growing share of companies' advertising budgets goes to Google and Meta. In sheer desperation, newspapers have placed the majority of their online editorial material behind paywalls, which, combined with declining subscriptions, has meant that even fewer people read the articles. In addition, in the competition for attention, editors feel compelled to sharpen the content of articles and features to attract more clicks. But with this behavior, the media undermines its own raison d'être by renouncing the most basic principles of journalism – to reflect society, convey accurate news and report objectively.

The possibility of using one's own channels to reach out with one's messages obviously also applies to companies and organizations. Why then should the communications department strive to expose the company management in earned media, when the manager is not even particularly keen on it? The argument so far has been that a message that is delivered once it has passed the journalist's critical filter gives significantly higher credibility than when it is conveyed through own or purchased channels. In other words; a positive mention, or even better a quote, in a newspaper article or in a radio or TV news feature is significantly more valuable than a personal post on social media or a purchased advertisement.

But the feeling is, that both business leaders' and politicians' perceived value of publicity has decreased recently. When the credibility of journalists decreases as a result of far-fetched headlines and splicing of facts and fewer individuals actually take part in the journalistic product, one might as well focus on communicating directly with their target groups in social media and via advertising. That also gives you control over the messages in a completely different way.

We see several examples of this in the political sphere. Sweden's second largest party, the Sweden Democrats (SD), has long preferred to communicate in its own media such as the opinion site Samtiden and the web TV channel Riks. It is clearly a way for SD to be able to devote themselves undisturbed to spreading controversial and light-hearted messages that they do not get out as easily via established media. But statements about shutting down public service and SD chief of staff Linus Bylund's talk about "journalist rugby" and "pushing journalists" testify that the party does not give much to the credibility of the media. It is perhaps not so surprising given that SD has long experienced the "left-liberal" media as biased. More remarkable is that Ulf Kristersson has to be the Swedish Prime Minister of all time who has been seen the least in the media. What this is due to, I shall leave unsaid, but many reacted to the fact that Kristersson was more or less unavailable to the journalists during the Tidö negotiations. Apparently, in any case, he didn't think it was very important to communicate with the voters via the media when he was going to form a new government.

So what is the problem? Isn't it just to accept that traditional media has been out-competed by more accessible and easy-to-manage channels and that the journalist's role is shifting to producing entertainment?

The problem is the lack of independent information transmission. Objective journalism plays a crucial role in a democratic society. The population and the electorate must have access to independent reporting in order to form an opinion on the state of affairs. It is based on this reporting that they must make their decisions about how to vote, which products to consume and so on. When business leaders and other people in leading positions, especially politicians, do not see the value of speaking to the media, we risk losing an important cornerstone of democratic society.

If representatives of the media see this as a problem, the first step needs to be taken by the editors. It is simply a matter of living up to the press ethical principles and showing that the reporters can be "trusted". In addition, media need to review their revenue models - I would think that the interest in advertising increases if the journalistic content is made available to a larger audience. Politicians who care about the preservation of democracy should re-evaluate their possibly negative attitude towards talking to journalists. Perhaps the hardest to convince will be the company managers. Here I think it is about basic psychology. "If I feel that you have no hidden intentions, I would be happy to talk to you."

You don't have to become best friends, as long as you know where you are and respect each other's functions in society. It is the only way to ensure that politicians and business leaders still see value in talking to journalists. So, time for the media to put the shovel aside and stop digging their own grave.

Published in Dagens Media 25.4.2023