Give your opinion on whether traditional journalism can survive in a media environment in which consumption happens mostly on social media, and sites like Buzzfeed use sensationalism shock to increase clicks.

November 2016

When I think about traditional journalism, there is a role model in my mind showing a business man in suit who sits at the breakfast table and reads his daily newspaper while his wife refills his glass with freshly pressed orange juice. This image is connected to ideals like sophistication and success, whereas modern online journalism has a rather negative reputation in our society. It seems that nowadays, postings about Brangelina get more clicks than the Aleppo bombing. 

But is that really a new phenomenon? It’s not a secret that newspapers that are known for their low-quality-journalism like ‘the sun’ usually reach the largest circulations and that already decades before the digital era has begun. Hence, there has always been a high demand for shocking sensations and tabloid news.

Conversely, there will always be a large interest well-researched articles and political analyses. The online versions of ‘The Economist’ and ‘The New York Times’ are also connected to Facebook to reach modern readers. As far as the journalistic quality is concerned, I expect a continuing coexistence of both sectors.  

In my opinion, the most striking difference is based on the availability of media. The mobile internet provides a permanent access to information which should be considered as a substantial progress compared to the former dependence to the traditional printing press. Besides the aspect of wasting resources like the paper for the newspapers as well as the fuel for the distribution, it is also questionable if receiving the printed version of information that met the evening-deadline  in order to be delivered the next morning still fulfills the requirements of our modern and fast-moving society.