By Patricia Mukhim
Technology is developing at a frenetic pace and transforming our way of doing journalism. Long form story-telling is passe and only those with time to listen to a 20 minute narration- which means the older generation – not millennials, not Gen X or Z, will enjoy what is produced by what we now call the ‘legacy media.’ Forget about reading newspapers, this is the era of click-baits and instant news on YouTube which like instant coffee gives a kick while it lasts. So, is the newspaper now a dinosaur to be discarded? The answer is ‘No.” The newspaper continues to be the basis of what journalism is all about, which is to inform, educate and generate public opinion which will in turn push people to take action. If a policy is legislated, short form journalism will not have the time to analyse the policy or to talk to opinion makers, academicians and thinkers who will give their considered views and therefore help the hoi-polloi to understand if the policy is in public interest or against it. This is where short form journalism falters.
Now the question is whether Gen Z the group of people who were born between the late 1990s and the early 2010s; whose eyes beheld the mobile phone the moment they opened them – are actually interested in what’s happening around them and whether they are motivated enough to take up causes. The answer to this question is straightforward. What happened in Nepal was a Gen Z-led revolution, so yes, this age group is capable of pulling down an elected government if they believe that government is acting against their collective interests and is involved in corruption and nepotism.
Interestingly, not much research has gone into what kind of media Gen Z consume and why. Do the Gen Z youth read anything substantive to give them enough information to take on the government of the day based on points derived from a critical analysis of the situation? Its high time that media practitioners engage with Gen Z to understand them better and to actually know what they expect from the media. This might help us wean Gen Z from click-baits and give them real news. Now some may ask what sort of news constitute click-baits. Click-baits are short form news that pique the curiosity of the viewer by using sensational headlines and phrases like, “You won’t believe this.” Such headlines capitalize on the human penchant for drama and shock, more so with Gen Z and pushes them to click the link and watch the news story only to find that there was nothing much in the story.
But this does not mean that we in the legacy media should not be exploring new ways of doing journalism. In fact, we not only have to deliver news differently but also write it differently using, if possible, some of the Gen Z lingo with explainers. We have heard a lot about cancel culture but hardly know its meaning. Cancel culture is a form of shaming the actions or opinions of a public figure, company or organization. If something is ‘dank,’ it’s excellent or of very high quality. ‘Cap’ means to lie. If a person says “no cap,” it means he is being authentic or truthful. A ‘Snack’ is a person you find attractive. These are just a few of the new lexicon. A story with these and more words included would resonate with Gen Z.
Robert Picard of the Reuters Institute once said, young people don’t like the journalism style of the past. So does Gen Z want journalists to jettison their objectivity and use drama with flourish to push a viewpoint instead of a balanced perspective? I asked some Gen Z in my family and the answer I got was that they wanted a new form of storytelling and if we are not ready for that we would become extinct. Gen Z who are also called the digital natives communicate differently. According to a Pew Study, 61% of millennials get their news about politics and government from Facebook because they want content relevant to them. Hence TV news channels like CNN and BBC have started partnering with Facebook. They are producing online videos which are crafted to be more engaging and personal. The journalist can no longer be faceless but has to engage and be ‘in your face.’
However, we also need to come to some crucial issues that the media has been repeatedly told it should be doing. It is drummed into a journalist’s head that our role in a democracy is to inform the public what’s happening closer home, in the region; the country and the world so that the ‘public’ can make informed decisions on crucial issues such as voting during elections. But judging by the quality of legislators we elect I am left wondering if the public really uses information while voting. If they did, we would not elect cranks to become law makers.
Another role of the media we are told is to facilitate debate since it provides a platform for diverse voices and opinions, enabling public debate on important issues. The idea is to build not only an informed but also an engaged citizenry. But is the public of Meghalaya engaged and ready to throw their hat in the ring and call a spade a spade in a public debate? Other than the predictable pressure groups the gentry will not want to be counted as dissenters.
Oh yes, we are repeatedly reminded that the media should be holding power to account by doing investigative journalism and exposing corruption and wrongdoing and to ensure that those in power are held accountable. We are told this is the crucible of a healthy democracy. So, we in the media dig out scams from time to time but what happens thereafter? The public will discuss it ad nauseum and move on to the next big story. And when journalists get into conflict with the law because the powerful file defamation cases against us, how many of that fiction called the “public” actually stand with journalists. We fight our own battles and fight mental health all alone. That’s journalism for you beyond the hype and hoopla.
However, journalists are not without their faults and failings too. Sensational and tantalising headlines have been common currency and we do this because we are in the race for ratings and clicks. But this focus on dramatic and shocking stories can divert attention from important issues and create a distorted view of reality. This is when media loses public trust and without that we might as well pack up our bags and leave. In this hyper-nationalistic world we live in, where extreme right wing ideologies are used to divide the polity, sensationalism can be dangerous and contribute to fear and panic apart from influencing public opinion and policy decisions in negative ways. The way forward therefore is to help build a more responsible and credible media landscape. We need constant feedback so we can correct ourselves and continue to play a positive role in helping to shape democracy and public policy. It is imperative to introduce subjects like ‘media literacy’ at the middle school level considering that even young kids are consuming so much news. The young and elderly must learn to critically evaluate news and information. Its time the public also learns how to fact check and find out if a particular news is true or fake. Media literacy programs can help people identify reliable sources, recognize biases, and avoid being misled by fake news.
At the end of the day, journalism is just one of the pillars of democracy. If the other three pillars which are state-supported don’t care about the erosion of democratic values the media alone cannot keep democracy on track.