FRIDAY, March 29, 2024
nationthailand

Long-form journalism sadly disappearing

Long-form journalism sadly disappearing

‘Magnifying-glass’ reporters are now becoming the order of the day

In one of his latest interviews, media veteran Suthichai Yoon bemoaned the fading away of “long-form journalism”, which he said was being replaced by “magnifying-glass” journalism. The difference, he insisted, was staggering, because the latter type of journalism is, more often than not, preventing the public from seeing all sides of a story.
The media veteran, who founded The Nation decades ago and is working in semi-retirement for the news media industry, said long-form journalism remained his motto because it allowed news consumers to absorb all necessary pieces of information and make their judgement based on that. Magnifying-glass journalism, on the other hand, zooms in on certain aspects and subsequent reports may please certain audiences, but it does not necessarily show the public the whole truth.
Political partisanship and illusional glory attached to the number of “likes” and frequency of “sharing” are promoting that magnifying-glass journalism, Suthichai said. Another key factor is the decreasing financial independence of news media outlets, which makes them rely on sponsorship or advertising money a lot more than before. When all influences are combined, news consumers are presented with a real danger of not getting the whole picture. Not only are news reports magnifying certain aspects of an issue, they are probably covered under the guidance of those with financial control, who know little about media ethics.
In the past, subscription money gave the media a considerable degree of independence. But the fast-progressing technology chipped away at the two-pillar revenue foundation of the news media industry, leaving advertising or sponsorship as the predominant source of income. Consequently, many news outlets have to increasingly serve the remaining source of money in order to survive.
Magnifying-glass journalism can serve the source of money or specific ideologies, and the questionable operation is aided by the shorter attention span of today’s news consumers. While the technology brings news to consumers faster, it shortens their attention on any issue considerably. This is bad news for long-form journalism, as reporters have to jump from one issue to another very quickly, leaving them a lot less time to give a topic all possible angles it deserves.
The situation is good for activists disguising as journalists. The two groups have differences and similarities. However, the similarities are glaring (fighting against the powers-that-be or trying to find out what is hidden) while differences are subtle, which means many activists can stay in journalistic shells for as long as they want.
Clarifying the “subtle differences” requires an example. Let’s take abortion. When a journalist has “enough” information, he or she tells the public, “Here’s my information and here’s what I think.” There can be pro-abortion journalists or anti-abortion journalists, but they have to be a cup that is never full. If you are an anti-abortion activist, you may be tempted to use your “magnifying glass” to highlight bad effects of abortion.
Long-form journalism helps reporters be the cup that is never full. It obligates reporters to find new angles, missing pieces of evidence or the possible devil in the details. If this type of journalism really dies, what can likely disappear with it include crucial parts of the truth. “Comprehensive news stories”, the ultimate goal of long-form journalists, can become endangered species.
There is no perfect answer on what can be done by journalists. News consumers must be part of the solution. Before making a final judgement, they must help find the missing angles or fill the loopholes they see. That’s the only effective way, at least for now, to save long-form journalism.

RELATED
nationthailand