Summary
Highlights
Holger Volmer introduces the Cycon conference series, organized by the German Science Journalists Association and Acatech, funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. He outlines the two parts of the conference: a virtual lecture series (part A) and a real-life working conference in Freiburg (part B). Volmer then introduces Tom Rosenstiel, co-author of "The Elements of Journalism" and Executive Director of the American Press Institute, highlighting his extensive experience in journalism and media research.
Tom Rosenstiel begins his lecture by addressing the fundamental role of journalism: to make information, previously held by a few, available to many, thereby creating a larger public square and a common set of facts. He observes that in the digital age, the public square is shrinking, fragmenting, and the pool of shared common facts is diminishing. He points to the recent US presidential debate as evidence of this problem.
Rosenstiel identifies several causes for the shrinking public square and common facts. First, technological advancements led to increased media choice, starting with the explosion of television channels in the 1980s and the deregulation of US media, which fostered partisan outlets. Second, market pressures encouraged partisan media by making it difficult for new entrants to compete on trust alone. This led to a significant decline in media trust even before the internet. Third, the architecture of the web, driven by targeted advertising, creates 'filter bubbles' that promote polarization. Finally, platform companies, unlike traditional media, largely eschew editorial processes, further exacerbating polarization.
He elaborates on the trust problem, noting that conservative Americans began distrusting media earlier, and now younger generations, regardless of ideology, also show high levels of distrust. This environment, coupled with growing income inequality, creates fertile ground for authoritarian leaders who undermine democratic institutions and promote divisiveness. Rosenstiel emphasizes that journalism, like science, is inherently democratic, and a strong journalistic system strengthens democracy.
Rosenstiel discusses the current re-examination of journalistic norms, questioning whether journalism is too elitist, racist, or outdated. He clarifies that journalistic 'objectivity' is a method for understanding the world, not an absence of views. Misunderstanding this, some journalists advocate for subjectivity, believing it leads to moral clarity, but this risks further polarization and avoids the 'annoying process of trying to understand multiple points of view'.
He addresses whether the current problems are inevitable. He argues they are not, and social and economic factors can change. Using the example of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US, he suggests that a different leadership approach could have unified the country and enlarged the public square, as he believes happened to a greater extent in Germany. He concludes with an optimistic outlook, believing that journalists, like scientists, are fundamentally optimists who believe in a better world through accurate information.
Holger Volmer poses questions from the audience. One asks why media trust declined despite increased choice, allowing individual tastes to be catered to. Rosenstiel links this to the fragmentation of media and the shift of ideological diversity from mainstream newsrooms to more partisan ones. Another question addresses whether investigative journalism, by exposing flaws, inadvertently aids right-wing forces that undermine institutions. Rosenstiel notes that misinformation campaigns strategically exploit the science of persuasion, while journalists focus on fact-finding, making them vulnerable to rapid dissemination of falsehoods.
Franco Zotta asks if declining trust indicates journalism's own problems, such as unclear self-conception or too much opinion and too little evidence-based reporting. Rosenstiel agrees that traditional journalism has issues and that people often dislike 'the media' generally but like their specific chosen outlets more. He emphasizes that the current era is a moment of re-examination for journalism, similar to past periods. Henrietta asks about the effect of constant 'fake news' accusations. Rosenstiel explains that such accusations aim to sow doubt and nihilism, paving the way for authoritarian leaders. He acknowledges that lies spread faster but argues that facts have enduring power. He stresses the need for more diverse newsrooms, including ideological diversity, to rebuild trust.
A question is raised about the special significance of journalism on science in a democracy, especially as science becomes a political and ideological battleground. Rosenstiel affirms its importance, noting that science provides a common method for seeking truth, which can temper ad hominem attacks. Effective science communication can enlarge the public square, fostering shared understanding on topics ranging from weather to health. He also highlights the need for authoritative science figures that the public can trust and recognize, pointing out a deficit in the US compared to Germany.
Cordula Klye asks how journalism can reach broader segments of society beyond the existing readership of outlets like the New York Times, and about the willingness to fund journalism without compromising independence. Rosenstiel cautions against partisanship in journalism, even when prompted by moral clarity challenges, citing examples from US cable news. He emphasizes the importance of thorough, deeply-reported journalism that is so robust it cannot be ignored, even if readers disagree with the conclusions. On funding, he states there's no single saving model; the quality of a news organization depends on the values of its owner, regardless of ownership structure (commercial, non-profit, etc.). He advocates for diverse revenue streams, acknowledging the limitations of relying solely on non-profit funding for broad civic coverage.
Henrietta asks about the role of platforms like Google and Facebook in restoring trust and what big 'ask' Rosenstiel would have of them. Rosenstiel expresses deep skepticism, stating he doesn't trust them to genuinely help, as their interests are primarily economic self-perpetuation. He argues they are too large and their underlying values, which prioritize targeted advertising and an 'open web' over editorial responsibility, are fundamentally at odds with the needs of a healthy public square. He believes they possess an arrogance and naivete about journalism's role, making them unwilling to make the fundamental changes necessary to truly support it.
Holger Volmer thanks Tom Rosenstiel for his clear statements and insightful analysis, concluding the first lecture of the Cycon series. He encourages attendees to join future lectures, emphasizing the complexity of the issues discussed and expressing hope for future real-life meetings.