The end of British journalism?

The perma-crisis affecting the news industry is worsening and risks overwhelming even the most resilient outlets.

Next month, I will mark thirty years as a journalist and journalism teacher, and the news industry has been grappling with disruptive change for at least that long. But this time it is different.

News organisations face two highly disruptive forces; each would be challenging to handle alone, but together they threaten to wipe out large parts of the industry.

Firstly, the rise of AI-powered search results that do not benefit publishers, combined with social media algorithms deprioritising external links, means the end of both search and social traffic to news websites. This has been the main driver of advertising revenue for the past twenty years. News organisations relying on high traffic to generate income through advertising have seen their revenues plummet. Insiders talk of 80% declines in traffic, and workforce cuts are seen as inevitable to balance budgets. Business Insider recently laid off more than 21% of its staff, more than 100 people.

At the same time, increasing mistrust of what was once called the mainstream media is leading to a shift away from traditional news towards alternative sources. As this year’s Digital News Report from the influential Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism states:

“An accelerating shift towards consumption via social media and video platforms is further diminishing the influence of ‘institutional journalism’ and supercharging a fragmented alternative media environment containing an array of podcasters, YouTubers, and TikTokers. Populist politicians around the world are increasingly able to bypass traditional journalism in favour of friendly partisan media, ‘personalities’, and ‘influencers’ who often get special access but rarely ask difficult questions, with many implicated in spreading false narratives or worse.”

All of this means there is a push for alternative revenue streams. Fifteen years ago, The Times pioneered seeking reader revenue for non-specialist news by placing its content behind a paywall. Despite surveys indicating that the British public is reluctant to pay for news, cultivating a loyal paying audience is one of few viable options for publishers seeking a stable income.

This is likely to mean that the 10% of the population willing to pay for news will be super-served with attractive products and deals, as publishers seek a smaller, older but wealthier and potentially more loyal audience.

That means there is a risk that “free” news reflecting traditional journalistic standards, such as verification, fact-checking, and holding power to account, will be provided mainly by the BBC and perhaps a few others like The Guardian. With linear television in decline, other broadcasters will struggle with the transition to streaming and may seek to escape some public service broadcasting obligations to supply news and current affairs.

That’s why government decisions prior to the BBC’s Charter Renewal must reaffirm the corporation’s purpose, even as its traditional channels decline. Democracy depends on an informed citizenry sharing a common understanding of the world. Rampant misinformation and disinformation spread through social media by users hungry for fame and profit pose a serious threat. The BBC’s role in providing impartial, factual information has never been more essential and will likely grow more important as other media outlets falter or retreat behind paywalls. This requires finding new ways to engage all audiences, not just older viewers of TV and radio.

Now this piece’s title includes a question mark, and that’s because I don’t really think this is the end of British journalism. It will evolve and adapt. Smart entrepreneurs will find ways to monetise audiences. People will continue to speak out and find platforms for their voices. The desire to understand the world that drives many journalists will not simply die out.

However, I do believe there is an existential risk to much of the news industry, and rash decisions in the next year or two could severely harm democracy in Britain. We all must understand what is at stake.