Staying Relevant: the Evolution of Journalism During the COVID-19 Pandemic
For many people around the world, a lot of things have stopped. Plans have been canceled, jobs have been lost, and in many ways, things are at a complete stand-still. Virtual alternatives simply can’t replace how things used to be, and this bleak reality has caused businesses, educational institutions, families, and individuals to be in limbo about their present situations and the future.
While much of the world has stopped, this is certainly not the case with journalism and the news. In fact, the media has been trying to provide answers, insight, and connectivity regarding the most important issues of our time during this crisis. Journalism has been accelerating during the pandemic as people seek out facts, analysis, and well-formed opinions.
But how journalism has been accelerating is what looks different nowadays. In addition to adapting reporting methods to comply with social distancing and state-mandated stay-at-home orders, journalists have had to shift how they convey key messages. Audiences are seeking accurate information, therefore providing credibility and creating trust with journalists and media outlets are at the core of the current state of the industry. A March 2020 survey conducted by Axios concluded that roughly 50% of Americans don’t trust traditional media sources (such as newspapers and cable TV) to deliver accurate information on the COVID-19 pandemic. The 2020 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report verifies that a similar negative sentiment is shared by other countries, concluding that journalists are the least trusted source of pandemic-related information. According to the Edelman survey (with over 10,000 respondents across countries including Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Africa, South Korea, and the United Kingdom), people trust journalists less than they trust politicians, co-workers, and “a person like yourself.”
While the public can consume information from other sources, this mistrust of the media is particularly problematic because in many ways, it’s journalists’ responsibility to enhance the public’s understanding of key research and disseminate effective advice and guidelines. If people don’t trust the press and instead choose to ignore even the most accurately reported stories, then a vast amount of the public will remain uninformed.
Media outlets have responded to this mistrust during the pandemic by leveraging a type of information that is objective in nature: data. According to research published by political scientists at Dartmouth, people are more likely to believe information when it’s represented by numbers, images, and charts. This conclusion may seem obvious since arguments are more persuasive when backed by clear evidence, but with the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, visuals have often been more powerful than words.
Consider the well-known phrase, “flatten the curve.” This one phrase stems from a visual that compares what the number of COVID-19 infections would look like with and without social distancing measures. This graph packs a mighty punch by sending a message (backed by science) about the importance of social distancing and why it should be taken seriously. Journalists have used this visual abundantly, and it’s a good example of how certain messages are better seen than read. Sometimes, words fail — and journalists who specialize in written media must learn to adapt.
Harry Stevens, a graphics reporter at the Washington Post, took this graph a step further and published a widely-distributed visual simulation of bouncing balls to illustrate how COVID-19 spreads exponentially, and how social distancing impacts the infection rate. Stevens’ piece, “Why outbreaks like coronavirus spread exponentially, and how to flatten the curve,” was retweeted by Barack Obama to his 114 million followers, and subsequently retweeted 125 million times after that. Stevens’ work became such a well-received piece of journalism because it took complex concepts from scientists and turned them into easy-to-understand explanations with concise messaging represented by visuals. The story was able to cut through the overload of pandemic reporting with something the public could easily understand.
Journalism has been around for centuries, and it has successfully reinvented and expanded itself over time. Witnessing news is no longer confined to just being at the right place at the right time. As with many other industries, the art and science of journalism is evolving with the abundance of information around us, including big data, audio, satellite imaging, and video surveillance.
In an era where journalists have to oftentimes compete with social media when it comes to breaking news and disseminating information, The New York Times has helped redefine modern reporting methods to ensure credibility and increase audience engagement. In 2018, The New York Times launched a video series called Visual Investigations, which takes an in-depth look at big stories using satellite images, videos, and photos. Of course, visual evidence that seems true and in “plain sight” can be misconstrued (like how a video that was supposedly of the April 2018 Syria strikes in Damascus was actually footage of an unrelated incident in 2014, recorded from Ukraine). Regardless of journalistic medium, reporting requires the basics of investigative techniques and fact-checking, and parts of journalism have evolved around the skills and technology required to present accuracy.
Lastly, in addition to changes in the public’s trust and reporters’ use of technology, journalism is also seeing a shift in content accessibility during this pandemic, specifically around stories that get placed in front of the pay wall. Many media outlets have chosen to make all pandemic-related stories available to the public, regardless of subscription status. While subscriptions are an important part of media revenue models, journalism has continued to uphold its public service mission. While this decision has compressed some revenue potential, in some cases it’s actually been encouraging boosts in digital subscriptions. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has been using the pandemic as an opportunity to reach as many readers as possible through a free standalone section called The Coronavirus Crisis, attracting audiences who wouldn’t otherwise usually turn to the Wall Street Journal for their news. While doing good and making money have a reputation of sometimes being mutually exclusive, some media outlets have taken the stance that short-term good will lead to long-term profitability. It’ll be interesting to see what publishers decide to put in front of its pay walls in the future, or if access to content will again be reserved for those who are willing (and able) to pay for it.
So, where does evolution lead us?
Without a doubt, the journalism industry is undergoing pressure amidst this global pandemic. Publishers are being forced to adapt and pivot their business strategies at unprecedented speeds, and individual journalists have no choice but to break through barriers imposed upon them. In just the past few months alone, many journalists have been forced to pick up new skills and redefine their research methods in order to produce cutting-edge content that is both trust-worthy and engaging. One of my mentors, an expert in the asset management industry, always used to say, “Evolve or die” — in reference to leveraging technology and data for fundamental investment methods. For all industries struggling in the pandemic, this concept of evolving or dying has never been more true.
Evolution, by definition, is the gradual development of something, especially from a simple state to a more complex, superior form. Growth and change oftentimes have their pain points and challenges, but the purpose of both is to come out better in the end. A lot of people are afraid that after the pandemic has come and gone, life as we know it will never return to its previous state. Whether that’s true or not is up for debate — but if it is true, then is it really something to be scared about? People have undoubtedly been pushed to their limits during this pandemic, but in return, they’ve also raised the ceiling of their own potential through new skills, better habits, or a larger capacity for mental fortitude.
Don’t resist change — move forward with it. Because if you don’t, you might just find yourself stuck in irrelevance.
The views expressed in this opinion piece do not reflect those of the writer’s employer or academic institution and should not be interpreted as professional investment advice.
