This is a dialogue between Financial Times international editor Alec Russell discusses journalism’s future with Ratiu journalism mentor and former Associated Press editor (and regular Unuiversul.net contributor) Dan Perry on the future of journalism.
Everyone can be a reporter-publisher now, via social media, with a potential audience of millions. So where does that leave professional reporters and actual publishers? That was the question addressed in this week’s session of the Ratiu Dialogues on Journalism, with veteran foreign correspondent and senior editor Alec Russell, international editor of the Financial Times.
His host was Ratiu Forum mentor Dan Perry, the former Associated Press chief editor for Europe, Africa and the Middle East, and the two share a history that stretches back more than three decades. Both began their international foreign correspondent careers in Bucharest in the weeks after Romania’s 1989 anti-communist revolution, which overthrew Nicolae Ceaușescu, transformed the country’s trajectory and ultimately led to the democracy Romania has today. That provided the starting point for a wide-ranging and pointed discussion about what has happened to journalism since then—and whether the profession can continue to play its traditional role in sustaining democratic society.
Russell argued that, despite the technological upheavals of the past 35 years, the fundamental mission of journalism has not changed. The task remains to understand what is happening and then distill it for readers or audiences in an intelligible, interesting, balanced, fair and accurate way.
“Sometimes we get caught up in groupthink. We miss stories. We play down stories. We get snooty about stories. And we ignore politicians who we think are beneath our gaze, and then, oh my goodness, they’ve got 40 percent of the vote.” — Alec Russell
Perry pushed the discussion toward the audience. The internet and social media have demolished the barriers to entry that once defined journalism. Establishing a newspaper once required printing presses, trucks, distribution networks and newsstands; today, virtually anyone can theoretically publish to billions of people. Is this a magnificent democratization of information—or chaos that threatens journalism and, ultimately, democracy?
Russell agreed that the change in what he termed “the means of journalism” has been sweeping. In 1990, a reporter armed with a pen and notebook largely worked to discover information independently. Today, journalists confront an ocean of instantly available information and must distinguish themselves by finding what others cannot.
They both focused on an even more consequential change: journalists are no longer necessary intermediaries between powerful people and the public. Companies, institutions and politicians can now communicate directly through social media and their own video platforms.
Increasingly, Russell noted, politicians reject traditional interviews in favor of short videos in which they can recite talking points, ignore uncomfortable questions and distribute the result unedited — without having to submit themselves to the awkward questioning of a journalist. But he expressed faith that enough people still recognize the value of trusted information and are willing to pay for it. That, he said, sustains his faith in journalism’s future.
Perry expressed concern about society, even if journalism survives. He described the possible emergence of a two-tier information society: a relatively small elite able and willing to pay for rigorous journalism, and a much larger public that accepts the model Russell described and increasingly consumes unverified, manipulative or outright false information. The informed minority would know better how to vote and invest, becoming wealthier and even more capable of paying for premium information — a kind of gated community of journalists and audience, surrounded by a broader information ecosystem indifferent to vetted truth and even hostile to “experts” – which includes journalists.
“You have a gated community of journalists and their readers and audience, and the rest of humanity, creating a challenge for democracy.” — Dan Perry
Russell pushed back – a little. He argued that there actually never was a “golden age” in which everyone was well-informed. British tabloids of his youth routinely published ludicrous stories — his memorable example was a purported B-52 bomber discovered on the moon. Perry countered that even tabloids had editors and at least some residual obligation to a version of the truth. Russell’s broader point was that the public should not be underestimated: voters may be led by populists for a time, but they can also recognize failure, grow disillusioned and reject politicians whose claims prove false. He acknowledged the enormous unresolved danger posed by social media platforms and tech titans that resist being treated as publishers, but said he was not ready to despair.
Perry then raised the threat of deepfakes and fabricated realities capable of creating mass panic before conventional news organizations can correct the record. That led to a more fundamental question: Is journalism merely a business, or does it have a social function? Is it, in some sense, a public trust? And if journalism claims a special role in democracy, who gave journalists the right to play it?
The discussion then turned to the retreat of the United States from democracy promotion. Russell described his own recent reporting on the State Department, arguing that an institution that had long promoted democratic ideals — however selectively and hypocritically — is becoming an agent of the “America First” ideology. Perry summarized the transformation starkly: America once selectively applied its ideals; now, increasingly, it appears not to apply them at all.
Russell agreed that this represents a retreat from principles that both, beginning their careers amid the democratic optimism of the early 1990s, once hoped could be taken for granted. But he also cautioned journalists against taking themselves too seriously. Reporters are not equivalent to politicians or judges, he said; sometimes they are simply gadflies, buzzing around the powerful in pursuit of stories.
Perry asked: If journalists are merely gadflies, why should anyone listen to them? Who appointed them as gatekeepers? And if their authority derives only from the market, what happens when the market disappears?
“There’s only one thing you need to keep in mind, and that is the quest to do great stuff. And if you do great stuff, people will read it and people will pay for it.” — Alec Russell
Russell acknowledged the force of the challenge. Journalism, he insisted, remains essential to a functioning society because even the best-intentioned people in power require outside scrutiny. But mainstream journalists have also given populists ammunition. They fall victim to groupthink, miss stories, dismiss issues they consider beneath them and sometimes look down on politicians who then win 40 percent of the vote.
The conversation ended with the future of foreign correspondence and advice for young journalists. The old model, in which scores of newspapers maintained correspondents around the world, has largely collapsed. But new organizations have emerged, and Russell argued that international correspondents remain necessary — provided they do more than simply recount what happened in their countries that day. Information is everywhere now. Correspondents must produce something special, distinctive and remarkable.
His final message to aspiring journalists was therefore strikingly simple. The formats may change — video, audio, text — but the essential mission does not. Find something out. Present it compellingly and fairly. Do great work, and people will read it and pay for it.
It was an optimistic conclusion to a conversation that had raised deeply unsettling questions. Journalism may be beleaguered, its business models disrupted and its authority under assault. But for Russell and Perry alike, its role in holding power accountable and sustaining a functioning society remains indispensable — even if the profession must now work harder than ever to prove that it deserves to be heard.
Nicolae Rațiu, Chairman of The Rațiu Family Charitable Foundation, summed up the situation: “Journalism remains, despite all challenges including those from uncontrolled social media, the key holder to account of politicians and government. The need for free independent media to be supported and protected is more vital than ever.” That is the daunting challenge of today’s young generation.
