What will journalism look like in twenty years? Will newspapers still exist? Punch research journalist Kelly Simpson and four of her fellow students from the University of Technology Sydney gaze into the crystal ball…

Question for 2029: who's this fellow and what are those things in the background?

Kelly Simpson – Postgraduate journalism student, UTS: How did you hear that Michael Jackson had died? That we’d lost the Ashes?

Print is dead, I’ve been assured. I’ve missed the glory days. There’ll be no ink smudged copy for me, no physical front page, no morning AND evening editions of the newspapers.

The people who tell me this will themselves be dead within twenty years, barring some sort of biological miracle. Hopefully with them will die out the strange need to talk down the next generation of writers and pour scorn on their methods and ambition.

Because – and this is a bit radical – much of the conversation regarding the future of journalism is taking place without traditional journalists. On purpose.

I have long thought that weekend papers should be sold out of a pick and mix bar at the back of the newsagent: pick up the news, sport and maybe some analysis or opinion and forget about the rest.

And I dig newspapers – really, I do. As readers, they make you work for your news. Wrestle with your broadsheet as you’re squashed between two invariably overweight ‘humans’ on your way to work. Dodge Piers and Miranda to get to Annabel and Joe. Cut out articles you really love and keep them, because they just feel better in the flesh.

But it’s unsustainable and economically stupid to print newspapers that are half filled with junk, information we’ve already been told or that we can more easily digest elsewhere.

We can’t know what journalism will look like in twenty years because we can’t even agree on what journalism looks like now.

It just won’t look like a newspaper.


Diana Nguyen – Postgraduate journalism student, UTS:

At a time when journalism is synonymous with ‘a dying industry’, I sometimes wonder what being shot in the arm is like. Could it be worse than setting up a home in Hyde Park and writing voluntary pieces for two years? And still without a job.

I wanted to be many (employable) things when I was younger; a policeman, a doctor and a primary school teacher. My fears of being shot, of blood and general dislike of children escalated as I became older and consequently, crushed all three dreams. And now, I’m a journalist. Or at least that’s what my lecturers want me to think.

The world of journalism is painted bleak, where the work is sparse and the competition many.

As more print publications come to an end, many people are expecting print journalism to be a thing of the past. But I’m not one of them. Yes, there will be cut backs in print but I don’t think it will disappear altogether. Online, radio and television news are generally based on print stories so that may contribute to the longevity of print journalism. Print will likely become limited and niche-based but not extinct.

And then there’s the so-called ‘saviour’ of journalism, the Internet.

Fairfax Media reported an annual net loss of A$380.0 million recently, with the economic slump, advertising cuts and the Internet to blame. Plus, Rupert Murdoch announced he will charge access to all his news sites in 2010 after making a huge financial loss this year.

Online journalism is often regarded as the ‘future of journalism’ by those in the profession. Online provides journalists (and non-journalists) with more opportunities to get their works published (and plagiarised) to a wider audience than print. As there is a growing number of people reading online, more news sites are launched to accommodate this trend. However, there are more factual, grammatical and spelling errors online than in print.

Xavier O’Halloran – Postgraduate journalism student, UTS:

There is every chance that in twenty years I will have traded the last threads of my left-wing idealism for a comfortable job marketing ‘Hello Kitty’ cigarettes to minors. I’ll still be so confounded by the relativism of my post-modern education that I won’t know, or probably even care, why I got into journalism in the first place.

Will newspapers still be around in twenty years? We will probably lose a few along the way, but it won’t necessarily be a bad thing. It’s simply a sign of the global world we live in, where much of the city vs. city, state vs. state and country vs. country tribalism of the past is being replaced by broader shared experiences. I’m happy that LOL cats are just as funny to me as to a 70-year-old retiree living in the Florida Keys.

Perhaps contradictory to this, at the same time as we are being pushed together by the centrifugal force of globalisation our media sources are diversifying. The online world has allowed for more sites to tailor media to different identities, conditions and tastes. So while there may be fewer newspapers in the future there will be more opportunity for media diversity.

All won’t be lost for me as journalist either, because in twenty years I’ll also be hitting my mid-life crisis and like all white people I’ll move to India to find myself, à la The Darjeeling Limited. I might even save an Indian kid from drowning and feel emboldened by some sense of neo-white man’s burden. I’ll come out of it all with certitude of who I am and what I’m going to do.

Just like me, journalism might go through some uncertainty as it tries to figure out what it is over the next twenty years, but it will come out the other side better for it.

Amanda Hoh – Postgraduate journalism student, UTS:

Newspapers are like vintage fashion that will take a long time, if ever, to fade. News is moving to the web and will only get bigger and faster in the future. But, even for a Generation Y-er who is all things Twitter and Facebook, there is a certain level of sophistication about getting print on your fingers and that tradition won’t be disappearing any time soon.

I think newspapers have been with us for so long, people will find it hard to break the habit of reading on the train, during lunch, and on the weekends and especially not within the next twenty years. Even though we have to pay for the paper, the news has the reputation of being well investigated and thoughtfully placed compared to online which is great for fast breaking news on the hour and values speed, quirkiness and controversy much more highly.

We are told at uni, DON’T GO INTO PRINT. Online and digital production is the way forward and the place where we can get the most jobs. The Internet has opened up access to news sites all over the world and with the technical facility to pair multimedia with news broadcast, it is the place which will provide new journalists the best opportunity in the market and the fastest way to break news.

However, even with the advent of information and news on the web, I still find holding and reading a tangible medium much more satisfying than reading off a computer screen.

Lauren Moorhouse – Undergraduate Journalism Student, UTS:

The apocalypse is coming. At least, outwardly, that seems to be the case for newspapers around the world. The depressing future envisioned for print publications has been seeping into the public consciousness nearly as much as it has hit media commentary, university classrooms and academic circles.

Predictions for the downward spiral and ultimate demise of the newspaper have been around for over a decade now, basically since the advent of the Internet in the early 1990s. Analysts and experts came out of the woodwork and argued that the technological advancements that had helped created the world wide web would be the final nail in the coffin for the out-of-date, backwards newspapers. Apparently, they didn’t stand a chance. And to make matters worse, newspapers are being threatened by citizen journalism with the arrival of blogs, search engines and various forms of popular social networking.

So the big question is, will newspapers exist in the future? I’d answer by posing more questions – Did the introduction of cinema and film kill the desire to watch musicals and plays at the theatres? Did radio die out when television came into the picture?



Industries change and adapt and that is what we are seeing at the moment with Rupert Murdoch’s announcement to start charging for his online content. We’ve been lucky that we’ve had the ability for the last ten years to have the knowledge of the universe at our fingertips. Did we think we could get away with freebies for life?

Journalism is a business and it’s still trying to find the right online model. I don’t believe for a second that there won’t be newspapers in the future, simply because we have the Internet today. It’s not about chastising a medium simply because something new has come along. It should be about bringing the two mediums together to get the best quality journalism out there for the public to consume.


Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Most commented

19 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:18am | 31/08/09

      Well, at least it seems like journalists will always be able to sell newspapers to each other. And new markets are opening up, too! http://tinyurl.com/npltbu

      As for the public, many of us are no longer “consuming” journalism. We’re making it, and better, too.

    • Jim Henderson says:

      10:05am | 31/08/09

      Journalism a business? Pah! Newspapers - nay, media - are a business - journalism has become a slop of incidental words plopped in to keep all those lucrative ads apart.
      What ever happened to the Press, the fourth estate? The vehicle to keep honest the bastards in the three other estates? The Church, the Crown and those other bastards?

    • Mondo Rock says:

      10:36am | 31/08/09

      When the hallmark of modern journalism is bland ‘he said, she said’ stenography, edited to ensure that it doesn’t offend any of the advertisers paying for the page it appears on, who can be surprised that it is dying. 

      It is hardly surprising that people are more interested in the work of amateurs who are at least trying to get past the bullshit and to see the truth.  Today’s political journalists are indistinguishable from the politicians they are sent to cover - and they receive similar levels of public trust as a result.

    • Tom says:

      10:46am | 31/08/09

      And where do these amateur journalists get their information? Who are their sources? Often they plainly rip off the traditional journalists who are paid to research, investigate and pry. News costs money, who is going to pay for it?

    • Michael Nguyen says:

      11:39am | 31/08/09

      What about the role that print journalism plays in modern democracies?  How will this be affected twenty years down the track?  How will the role of journalism in democracy generally be affected by the removal of print media?  How can online media properly become the institution of “journalism” that is a fundamental part of our democracy?  Can it at all, given the ability for online media to morph from second to second?

      Aside from Diana Nguyen’s (who BTW has a great surname) cursory observation that online media is prone to more errors (factual and grammatical) than print, the other journalism students don’t even go near the aforementioned topics.

      The most scary thing about this vox pops of our future journalists is the absence of any discussion about the aforementioned topics in favour of a “try hard” attempt at humour, a nihilist view of journalism / PR or a commerce student’s analysis of the ideal business model for journalism.  If these are the views of future journalists…

    • Emma Smith says:

      12:05pm | 31/08/09

      @ Michael. You have some valid points, however, it seems fairly obvious to me that these students were given a limited amount of words to articulate their opinions. Sometimes being direct and to the point as a journalist, is also a highly valued attribute. Perhaps if they were publishing dissertations online you might get extended responses to all of your questions.

    • Xavier O'Halloran says:

      12:09pm | 31/08/09

      Thanks for your analysis Michael, next time I get 300 words I’ll be sure to include a polemic discussion on the importance of journalism to democracy. To be honest I think it is taken as a given. Journalism has been important to democracy for the last 200 or so years, I think it’s fair to say it still will be for the next 20, shifting online has hardly changed this fact.

    • Garry says:

      12:35pm | 31/08/09

      I miss reporters, I miss those days when news was written without a benefit of an opinion to. I hate the gutter press headlines that are written more and more in main stream newspapers those headlines that give opinion or twist a view just to inflame and sell paper. I miss the probing questions, that one extra question that should be in their mouths to ask but do not because of a political view, a ‘don’t want to upset the political leader for fear of reprecussions to the paper’ attitude or a ‘same view as the papers’ is sad for a free voice.

      The standards set in our past reporters are sadly loose now because of what? ‘what the people want?’ or ‘we are just there to make comment at our leaders rather than present the news?’

      Am I archaic for wanting ‘Just the facts’ and not the embelishing?

    • Joshua Tate says:

      12:50pm | 31/08/09

      “As for the public, many of us are no longer “consuming” journalism. We’re making it, and better, too.”

      Really? You honestly think that? Most of the time all this media-‘makign or commenting amounts to is a torrent of snide comments and useless point-scoring that amount to nothing. There’s no substance to it, just tenuous opinion and agro.

      Eric, I think you grossly over-exaggerate the importance of such insipid comment-making. It’s hardly a replacement for the hard facts of reporting by journalists that are out in the field collecting information.

    • Lord Grognard says:

      02:25pm | 31/08/09

      These days ‘Journalist’ is just a synonym for ‘Advertising Agent’ .  Newspapers are just big magazines for whoever’s paying the bills, be it the international entrepenuer owners or the businesses and political parties buying advertorial space.  That’s of course when it isn’t busy cooking up outrageous ‘stories’ to get the reader’s blood all angry in a sorry attempt to sell more copies.

      The deplorable state of journalism has forced the general populace into a curious existential state where a reader can be fairly sure that anything written in the media is at least 50% fabrication and said reader can only depend on their own personal experiences to guide important decisions such as voting in elections.

    • Virginia says:

      02:26pm | 31/08/09

      I’m 22 and a recent graduate of journalism. I live and breathe digital, the internet etc but believe there’s no substitute for a print edition. Nothing beats flicking through a paper, questioning the placement of a story, scanning the page for bylines and finally, the feeling of accomplishment when I’ve read the entire thing from cover to cover.

      Long live print I say!

    • Stu says:

      02:44pm | 31/08/09

      Hang on… that’s five UTS students who have all written contributions without payment. On a site that currently does not charge for its online content. So, if The Punch and other News Corp web sites begin charging for content, will you five then ask to get paid?

    • Formersnag says:

      04:28pm | 31/08/09

      The only scumbags, lower than politicians, bureaucrats or international bankers, are the (Canberra press gallery) journalists, telling us, how wonderful, honest, hard working, altruistic, etc, they all are.

    • eyeswiredopen says:

      04:35pm | 31/08/09

      Some of your journalism undergaduates are worryingly out of touch with the latest developments, seemingly unaware of the bankruptcy of the Tribune company which owns the Chicago Tribune and LA Times in December, the continuing solvency crisis at the NYT and Boston Globe, ad the failure of any managements to find workable new business mnodels for these and the many other newspapers now losing money around the world. If you cant even use social networking sites, Google Reader, etc to keep in touch with this readily available info, how on earth do you expect to survive in the new era of tech-savvy consumers and reader-writers

    • Eric says:

      05:22pm | 31/08/09

      Joshua, I think you grossly overestimate the contribution of professional journalists.

      Over the years, consistently, and from country to country, there have been public surveys carried out about the trustworthiness of various professions. Guess where “journalist” comes? A bit above “politician”, a bit below “prostitute”.

      There’s a reason for that.

      Journalism is not a public good. It’s an evil. And the sooner it’s driven from the public sphere, the better.

    • Michael says:

      09:08pm | 31/08/09

      Ok I have to declare my conflict of interest. I am friends with Mr OHalloran. My posting was a result of a dare started on facebook.

      I posted a critical comment because of the dare. I actually really enjoyed reading the pieces. They were both entertaining and thought provoking.

      I think online editorial and blogging evidences the immediacy and usefulness of online forums for getting immediate responses to ideas. This is something that print media has found difficult to emulate, although the double spread in MX comes close.

      I’m on my handheld device and can’t see all text so can’t proof properly. Please excuse any errors.

    • Arani says:

      11:00pm | 31/08/09

      Good work, Michael, on trivialising both your comments and these students’  hard work with a sentence.

      In regards to the notion of charging for online content that Moorhouse raised… For someone who can’t fathom the idea of going online and not knowing what is happening in the world with just a click of the button - something that I’m sure many people my age have begun to see as a right, or at least an essential part of functioning as a citizen - it’s difficult to see how this would ever work.

      There will always be journalists who will do it for free (or am I clinging to some out-dated notion of what function journalism plays in society?). Either here or overseas, there will always be people who post the news in an accessible, free, form, whatever their reason.

      I know it’s not really what’s being discussed, but it seems as though it would be entirely the wrong avenue to take while “adapting” to changes that are occurring.

      But then, I do subscribe to Le Monde, so perhaps my issue is why anyone would pay for Australian standards of journalism in popular publications…

    • jstevens says:

      11:45am | 01/09/09

      Eric, if you have seen what goes on in a newsroom, then you might change your view. If you don’t believe journalism is a public good, then everything would have shut down years ago and we’d all be brainless morons just walking around being spoonfed all we need to know by those in authority. I wouldn’t want to be part of that world. Go to China, Cuba or Venezula and then you’ll know what a dictatorship is.

      While you may disagree with what is presented, at least journalists and journalism forces you to think about what goes on in the world around us. No profession is perfect. In societies like Australia, where politicians and bureaucrats believe they always know best and dupe the public, good journalism is vital to a functioning democracy. There probably will still be printed papers, but whatever shape or form the industry takes, people will still want to know what is going in their communities.

    • Bill Bartmann says:

      09:05am | 03/09/09

      Hey good stuff…keep up the good work! smile

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @ToryShepherd: "We have children, and our children are loved and our children are cherished", @SenatorWong says http://t.co/CQhJFpdf2o v…

ToryShepherd

"We have children, and our children are loved and our children are cherished", @SenatorWong says http://t.co/CQhJFpdf2o via @newscomauHQ

Paul Colgan

Sergio Garcia made an appalling fried chicken joke http://t.co/UyUBjZ3ivr

Paul Colgan

Apple "quietly negotiated" a corporate tax rate of 2 per cent with the Irish government http://t.co/FFIHgqLFOA

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter