"Fact-Research" to the rescue?

The New Nightmare of Journalism

Abstract

From a historical point of view, journalism had never been in a situation of risk as critical as it is now. In the past, it was able to overcome the challenges of its opponents because they were single, specific, and punctual. However, now it has to confront a very complex scenario in which several risk factors converge, including the ghost of social media that stand out in a very special way.

Journalism, historically, has gone through several periods in which it has had to manage serious troubles. From the 20s of the last century, the radio complicated its life, competing advantageously with it in the field of news immediacy. Then, in the 40s and 50s, television took away journalism’s leading role in the field of dramatic and sensational messages. More recent (in the nineties), the Internet began to reduce slowly and progressively newspaper audiences. In each case, the doomsayers predicted the end of newspapers and the entire industry of current information.

Obviously, that did not happen; but journalism had to reinvent itself. After that, it had to change its information strategies. Instead of emphasizing —as it had been doing since the beginning of the modern news industry— its reporting task on the anecdotal and simplicity of the issues, it focused its work on the reflective and transcendent of the facts. In other words, it turned his attention to those events that, while appearing simples, had a potential burden of positive or negative effects on society. Likewise, it looked for clear explanations of the circumstances in which the facts were complex or confuse for readers.

That was the scenario in which more solid informative modalities, such as Interpretive Journalism, appeared, and in which emerged strengthened printed media oriented to help readers understand their news environment, highly fragmented by an uncontrolled flow of unrelated and unconnected facts. That, in a particular way, was the case of Time magazine.

However, journalism currently faces a different and potentially more dangerous historical challenge. Not because that risk be, individually, greater than those represented by radio, television or Internet; but because it is so complex and multiple. It no longer competes with each of them. It practically fights against all of them simultaneously. In addition, the adverse circumstances to journalism go further. It now has to fight a multi-cephalic monster that includes the progressive reduction in advertising revenue and the dramatic and sustained decrease in audiences (McChesney and Nichols, 2010).

In its struggle for survival, journalism has neglected some of its tasks related to the explanation of current events. His efforts have been diluted in the search for ways that allow it to continue guaranteeing a place in the interest of the public increasingly seduced by social media.

In that sense, the biggest journalism’s fault, from a professional point of view, has been failing in its responsibility to verify facts and investigate the veracity and consistency of the sources' statements, as well as his interpretative and analytical function of reality. That is the reason why some journalistic experts, in the Western world, have enunciated the concept of “Fact-Checking” that, although it does not refer to something new, is very important because tries to request reporters accomplish their duty of verify facts.

So, by venture and paradoxically, the serious situation that journalism today confronts could offer it, at the same time, a lifesaver platform. If it attends the claims of the news reporting specialists and adequately interprets the new needs of the public, about explanation and clarification of the overwhelming information stream of social networks and cyberspace, it could not only survive; but, once again in its history, it can be remained strengthened. Everything will depend on its ability to evolve and reinvent itself.