Introduction1

The crisis in journalism

2The central role of professional journalism in modern society is so obvious that many people are inclined to take it for granted (Christians et al., 2009: vii). This does not only count for the general public. It is also true for many scholars, as we have seen in the years when there was a huge optimism about the potential of citizen journalism. During this period, that started with the birth of Web 2.0, the idea grew that “the people formerly known as the audience” (Rosen, 2006) would take over control of the media and a new era had arrived: the era of “we, the media” (Gillmor, 2004). That optimism has gone again, and has been replaced by the conviction that a journalism that serves the public by remains indispensable to support a democratic culture (EJTA, 2013). These are tasks for independent professionals and they should not be given in the hands of the state, of commerce or of amateurs. However, the profession that has to guarantee relevant and trustworthy information – journalism – finds itself in a double crisis: a financial crisis and a functional one.

• providing an insight into important political, economic and socio-cultural conditions,

• holding institutions and officials accountable,

• supporting citizens to make choices in societal and personal contexts,

3The financial crisis concerns the diminishing reach of paid for mainstream news media. The interest for professionally produced news is going down, especially among the young (see for instance Mindich, 2005; Curran et al., 2014; Drok, Hermans, Kats, 2017). This often goes hand in hand with a decreasing willingness to pay for news, which clearly is threatening the existence of mainstream news media, especially those in the private sector (Splichal, Dahlgren, 2016). The solution for this financial crisis is believed to be found in technological and economic innovations, like the fitting in of mobile platforms, the development of new business models and the promotion of entrepreneurial journalism. The functional crisis is also about a diminishing reach, but on a deeper level. It concerns the declining relevance and meaning of journalism for various groups and communities in society. Jay G. Blumler (2011: xv) has interpreted the two crises as follows: “One is a crisis of viability, principally though not exclusively financial, threatening the existence and resources of mainstream journalistic organisations. The other is a crisis of civic adequacy, impoverishing the contributions of journalism to citizenship and democracy.”

4Within the news industry, these two crises are not always clearly distinguished. They are mostly seen as one and the same crisis. As a consequence, the causes of both crises are considered to be of a technological or economic nature. Therefore also the solutions are looked for in the techno-economic sphere. This might work for the financial crisis, but it is not enough to deal with the functional one. What is lacking is a thorough reflection on the social and personal meaning journalism can have in the context of the 21^st century. More attention is needed for the roles and values of professional journalism, for “the too often missed cultural component in explanations of the current crisis facing news, democracy and journalism in an age of digital media” (Franklin, 2016). To understand the importance of this cultural component, we should first consider the social field of public information and communication in which the current professional culture of journalism could develop: the mass media model.

Professional culture in the mass media model

6The current culture of professional journalism has strong roots in this successful era. Over the years consensus grew about the core values of professional journalism, the trias journalistica: independence, objectivity and immediacy (Weaver, Willnat, 2012; Deuze, 2006; Hanitzsch, 2013). Independence is about practicing journalism free from hindrance, limitation or manipulation. Objectivity is about applying proven methods in order to be able to offer well-balanced and accurate information. Immediacy is about the fast dissemination of news about important events and issues, what most professionals see as the core of their journalistic work. These three interrelated values define the relation of professional journalism to three central concepts: power (independence), truth (objectivity) and time (immediacy) (Ahva, 2010). They set professional journalism apart from public relations, fiction or propaganda (Kovach, Rosenstiel, 2001).

7In the successful second half of the 20^th century the professionalization of journalism advanced, for instance through codification (e.g. Code of Bordeaux, 1954) and the strong growth of the number of institutes for professional schooling in journalism. This reinforced the emancipation of journalism and contributed to the professional quality of journalistic work. However, a professionalization process can have its downsides. As the process advances, professional values and norms can become relatively autonomous and the profession can alienate itself from the rest of society (Aldridge, Evetts, 2003).

8At the end of the century many stakeholders feared that in professional journalism such a process was going on: “Critics in and out of journalism agreed that journalists, like any other professional group, could become a conspiracy against the public” (Schudson, 1999: 121).

9Independence evolved in the direction of a desire for full professional autonomy which included stronger detachment from the public. Objectivity evolved into the direction of the belief to be a mirror of reality and truth, which included claiming neutrality. Immediacy evolved in the direction of a thirst to be first, which included a growing emphasis on getting scoops. The majority of professional journalists became devoted to the role of the neutral and detached mirror of reality, whose main task is to spread information as fast as possible (Weaver, Willnat, 2012; Hanitzsch, 2013). The direction in which the colouring of the trias journalistica evolved – detachment, neutrality claim, scoop driven – threatened to widen the gap between the profession and the public. As Roy Peter Clark (in Steele, 1997: 164) noted at the end of the 20^th century: “The creation of a professional class of journalists may have produced an alienation between journalism and the public”. This is problematic for a profession that legitimizes itself on the basis of its democratic function and of its claim to act on behalf of the public (Rosenberry, St. John 2010).

A changing context

10The society within which professional journalism operates, has changed in many respects over the past decades. These changes are manifold and sometimes contradictory, but they can – with some good will – be summarized by distinguishing four main developments: informatization, internationalization, individualization, and informalization (the 4 i’s; Drok, 2007).

11Informatization concerns the process in which digital information technology becomes all-pervasive, entering almost every aspect of public and private life. It facilitates the emergence of a new social infrastructure of public information and communication. It allows every individual or group to disseminate information on a large scale by themselves (citizen publishing) or via a professional news organisation (user generated content, co-creation) (Singer et al., 2011; Bowman, Willis, 2003; Gillmor, 2004; Bruns, 2005). This new structure promotes “disintermediation”, the surpassing of journalism by public or private parties in their communication with the public. The main challenge for journalism is to develop a stronger and closer relationship with the public, one that is truly interactive.

12Internationalization concerns the growing mobility of people, goods and ideas and the increasing economic and political interdependence between nations. Important issues in society, such as sustainability or security, become more complex and can only be understood and solved at a supranational level. At the same time globalizing trends lead to a revival of local identity and local community (Kenis, 2009). It will become more important to connect the global and the local, according to the motto: “life is global, living is local” (Aldridge, 2007). The main challenge for journalism is to develop new journalistic genres and practices to deal with complex and long-term issues in a meaningful and constructive way, in order to avoid feeding cynicism or apathy.

13Individualization concerns the process where individuals break away from traditional social structures and value systems. It stimulates cultural diversity and individual freedom of choice, but it can also strengthen fragmentation and polarization. The process of individualization has reinforced the diminishing interest for membership of civil society associations like the political party, the trade union or the church in many countries, especially among the up growing generation. At the same time there seems to be a growing need for new forms of collectiveness: large scale events flourish and communities thrive, virtual as well as geographical. The challenge for journalism is to meet the more specialized wishes of the individual consumer as well as the more general needs of citizens and society as a whole. Next to that, professional journalism might want to fill the public space that the erosion of the classical civil society institutions has left, by helping people to solve their collective problems.

14Informalization is related to individualization, but the primary focus is on the diminishing of social distance, especially with regard to its vertical dimension. It can lead to lower levels of institutional and hierarchical trust (Waisbord, 2013). It affects the relationship between the general public on one side and elites, experts and authorities on the other. The authority of a professional – a teacher, a doctor, a journalist – does no longer automatically come with the job, but must expressively be earned. The challenge for journalism is to enlarge the trust of the public and to lay a new basis under its most important asset: credibility.

Journalism in the network model

15Against the background of developments such as informatization, internationalization, individualization, and informalization, the network model began to emerge. The network model has other technological, economic and socio-cultural features than the mass media model. In the technological realm the network model puts an end to the one-way, sender-oriented communication pattern. It is characterized by a digital infrastructure that is built around nodes and the relationships between them, in which interactivity and connectivity are key concepts (Van der Haak, Parks, Castells, 2012). In the economic realm the network model is characterized by the end of monopoly for both production and distribution of news. The news market evolves into a polypoly, a market with almost limitless suppliers, including aggregators, algorithms and audiences. Next to that, digitalization has made it very easy to share news and – unlike other economic goods – news has the strange character that it doubles after sharing between two persons, instead of getting divided in halves. News and information scarcity comes to an end and turns into abundance. This has a downward effect on the price people are willing to pay for news. In the socio-cultural realm the mass audience has fallen apart and has become fragmented. The mass audience is gradually being replaced by special interest groups as well as by communities that are focused on general interest and collective problem solving (see for instance Van Dijk, 1991; Castells, 1996; Bardoel, Deuze, 2001; Van der Haak, Parks, Castells, 2012; Heinrich, 2013).

16The network model requires a new interpretation of the trias journalistica, the three core values of professional journalism: independence, objectivity and immediacy. Obviously, independence remains indispensable whenever the state or the market tries to suffocate journalism’s freedom of investigation and expression. However, a detached and autonomous attitude with respect to the public should be replaced by an openness to connect and cooperate. Obviously, objectivity in method (valid, accurate, fair) must remain a distinguishing feature of professional journalism. However, the claim that the outcome of journalistic work is an objective and neutral reproduction of reality is difficult to maintain. It should be replaced by being transparent and showing engagement, as a new basis for establishing trust and credibility. Obviously, immediacy will remain a defining characteristic of news, as the public wants to be able to continuously monitor the world that surrounds them. However, ultimately, much of the fast news will be automated or taken over in other ways, and professional journalists should focus on slower forms of journalism, aimed at verification, investigation and problem-solving.

Chart 1. From mass media model to network model

20th century Mass media model	21st century Network model
Infrastructure: Disseminative One-way communication Monopoly Scarcity Mass audiences	Infrastructure: Interactive Two-way communication Polypoly Abundance Communities
Culture: Sender-oriented Detached Autonomous Neutral Scoop-oriented	Culture: Connective Attached Cooperative Engaged Solution-oriented

17The fundamentally changing context of professional journalism, summarized by the transition from the mass media model to the network model, is an extensive and complex process. It raises important questions for 21^st century journalism. How to connect with the public? How to be of value in an environment where news is abundant and concentrated attention is scarce? How to develop a journalism that enables the public to come to grip with their problems? How to deal with important long-term issues in a way that offers the public new perspectives instead of more disillusion? This kind of challenges are difficult to meet if journalists keep considering themselves mainly as detached disseminators of neutral information, as many still do according to the role perception studies that are carried out around the world (Weaver, Wilnat, 2012). It seems that professional journalism has trouble adapting its culture to the structural change, which is a classic example of what William Fielding Ogburn (1922) almost a century ago has called a “cultural lag”.

18Over the past years we have seen the emergence of many labels that try to grasp the new direction that journalism should take. To mention a few: communitarian journalism, conversational journalism, engaged journalism, participatory journalism, interactive journalism, reciprocal journalism, constructive journalism, solution-oriented journalism, community journalism, citizen-based journalism, slow journalism, conciliatory journalism, conflict-sensitive journalism, care journalism. All of these express the need for innovation of journalism’s culture. Here lies an important task for journalism education.

Renewing journalism through education

19As stated before, during the second half of the 20^th century journalism was doing very well in our part of the world. Print circulation rose to a historic height in the nineties. Audience ratings and advertisers revenues peaked. Finding a job in journalism after graduation was relatively easy. The main task for educators was to closely follow the highly successful industry by teaching students the tricks of the trade, together with some reflection on journalism’s role in society and knowledge about political, social, economic and cultural issues. Being in this “follower mode” was a rather comfortable position.

20At the end of the century things started to change. The public’s interest in the products of professional journalism started to drop and nowadays news media organizations and scholars alike worry about the future of professional journalism. For journalism education the status quo in the news industry can no longer serve as the indisputable point of reference. The function of journalism in society is changing profoundly and therefore journalism schools can no longer focus on journalism as it is today. They have to look beyond the status quo and develop a normative vision on the future role of journalism in society (Zelizer, 2017). As Clifford G. Christians et al. (2009: vii) note: “At issue is not only what is the role of journalism in society but above all what this role should be. Such a perspective of the media’s mission in democracy leads us to a normative level – beyond factual landscapes toward values and objectives”.

21Journalism schools have to become centres of reflection and they need to change from the follower mode to the innovator mode (Deuze, 2006). This is easier said than done. Many schools of journalism experience declining numbers of students and budgetary cutbacks. This favours cautiousness and a growing emphasis on the training-for-the-industry paradigm in journalism schools, which puts them back in the follower mode (Goodman, Steyn, 2017). On top of that, journalism teachers are mostly not that eager to look beyond the current practice of journalism in the first place. Furthermore, students often have a short-term interest in getting their first job. And the news industry usually wants employers that are immediately usable in the production process. Next to that, in many countries accreditation bodies stimulate educators to confirm to the status quo by persistently considering student’s achievements at an internship and their chances of quickly getting a first job as very important indicators for educational quality. These are all strong mechanisms in favour of staying in the follower mode.

22And even when schools of journalism persist in focusing on innovation, they are usually inclined to follow the industry in defining innovation mainly in terms of commerce (e.g. entrepreneurial journalism, new business models) and technology (e.g. mobile journalism, news gaming). Understandable as that may be, in the current era a broader concept of innovation is needed, one that expressively includes the cultural dimension: “This requires shifting focus away from a fixation with anticipating technological change and emerging business models, turning instead to persistent, historically rooted concerns about journalism’s sustained democratic value” (Creech, Nadler, 2018: 194).

23One of the most prominent elements in such a broader concept of innovation is to put the citizen, in his/her capacity as a potential actor in the public sphere, in the centre. Professional journalism still is too much of a top-down, one-way information supplier. In daily practice this sender-oriented culture is very much alive and gets new impetus by certain social media, notably Twitter. This reinforces the image of “a journalism that justifies itself in the public’s name but in which the public plays no role, except as an audience” (Kovach, Rosenstiel, 2001: 23). Putting the citizen in the centre requires that the sender-oriented culture is replaced by a connective culture (Chart 1). Although research shows some changes for the better, a widely supported cultural innovation has not yet taken place and interesting new technologies are mainly used for achieving traditional ends: “No transformation of an essentially ‘mass communication’ model of public communication has yet occurred, despite more interactivity, participation and an opening to more sources of content. Journalism is largely on the side-lines of this whole process and new online forms are adapted to old purposes” (McQuail, 2013: 214).

Conclusion

25Journalism education can be perceived as a way “in which society can intervene to influence the development of journalism” (Curran, 2005: xiv). The current transition to a network society requires such an intervention, since “[…] journalism is of central importance to contemporary society and its future cannot simply be left to chance or its current producers alone” (McQuail, 2013: 197). In the process of adopting a concept of innovation that includes redefining the roles and values of professional journalism, teachers play a pivotal role. They have to pave the way for a journalism that fits the network model, not only in terms of technology and economics, but also in terms of professional culture. The EJTA has launched a large-scale survey among journalism teachers about their views on the professional values, goals and qualifications of the 21^st century. The online questionnaire was distributed among over 2000 teachers in more than 25 European countries at the beginning of 2018. The results will be presented at the 5^th World Journalism Education Congress in Paris, 2019. Hopefully it will help to find answers to the fundamental question how professional journalism can keep fulfilling its unique democratic function in a postmodern network society.