De Facto Times

“Journalism is dead,” as it’s often said, and although the point is trite, it is worth examining why such sentiments have become commonplace. The public no longer trusts journalists, commonly citing a series of grievances to demonstrate why journalism has fallen: they’re bought off, they don’t report the facts, they’re uninformed, and they’re overwhelmed with biases. Whether or not such criticisms bear truths, their effects have been significant: a grand social shift from trust in journalists to deliver information to anarchy of information. Although traditional news outlets continue to be frequented, information is now spread by the masses through means such as social media. Misinformation is rife and more contagious than ever. Nevertheless, the supposed death of journalism was never the fault of journalism itself; it was the alleged malpractice of a few, or even many, who smeared the name of journalism. Journalism should not be left behind as the new tomorrow approaches. No—it must be further embraced and integrated into the lives of the many, and it must be conducive to good.

Journalism serves a crucial function in democracy; it is the vehicle by which information is delivered to the people and thereby a driving force in electoral change. Such an immense power carries with it responsibility. The journals that have accrued credibility through merit are often slow to rise and slow to fall, cyclically remaining relevant through the perception of their credibility rather than their continued merit. The rare few journals of this caliber hold power that not even the government itself can hold without a journal of their own—they control the narrative, the issues as they are perceived and prioritized by the people. Newspapers are the eyes of the outside world. Although people care about the issues that directly affect them, they often involve themselves in the greater political game, something they are incapable of understanding unless others are able to inform them of it reliably and correctly.

So, having understood what journalism is, what makes a journal good? A good journal is one that best prioritizes the interest of the people. Such an objective may be best approximated through a series of assurances such as the following: there is no conflict of interest in how the journal receives its revenue, the focus of the journal is conducive towards the betterment of its society (often through striving for truth and good), and articles are well-researched, avoiding blatant errors. These three tenets encompass many of the common grievances with the state of journalism but leave out other commonly cited factors such as bias. Because a good journal is one that best prioritizes the interest of the people, it follows that a bad journal is one that is ineffective at this task and/or swayed by other interests. Where the factors I have enumerated as being conducive to a good journal follow this criterion, bias is more dependent. This may be due to a conflation in the differing understandings of bias and hence the word being rather vague and ill-defined, so I shall clarify that when I am referring to bias, I am referring to a definition such as this: “prejudice for or against someone or something” as opposed to a definition which explicitly denotes a distortion of reality to favor that prejudice. The ladder definition is obviously unproductive and unconducive to finding truth. Alternatively, the former is relatively unproblematic; the mere existence of prejudices does not inherently imply a distortion of truth or even the threat of misguiding the people. Unless one is an utter relativist through all their being, they will likely have some kind of prejudice. It is beneficial to be prejudiced against the fruits of untruth and bad and prejudiced in favor of the fruits of truth and good. Therefore, I don’t find bias to be one of the primary problems with journalism unless it specifically is understood as the distortion of facts to fit preconceived notions.

In a field as important as journalism, there are a myriad of factors that may be deemed conflicts of interest to any degree, so it is best to narrow down these factors based on what exceeds the threshold of being deemed significant. Generally, these factors are ones that shift the priority of journalists from the interest of the people to the interest of a small group in a way that is no longer beneficial to the majority. So, it’s okay to amplify the interests of a minority group if it’s beneficial for society on the whole, but these tend not to be the groups that exhibit a conflict of interest. Those who exhibit a conflict of interest are often those who receive funding from an identifiable majority group, most often unrelated corporations and governments. In these cases, the incentive structure has shifted to where serving the entity that pays you is far more desirable than serving the people. Information transforms from majoritarian to plutocratic and is now able to damage democracy. Even if they claim their operations are still beneficial for society on the whole, they cannot be trusted so long as they are bought; financing is too powerful a force not to skew thought in the majority of cases where it is involved. Unrelated corporations are those that bear no connection to the journal company in question, often with reach in unrelated industries. The problem that arises from this is favoring and endorsing a company and its fruits that would have otherwise not occurred in a way that is unaligned with what is true or good, especially if it means forgoing the important faults of the funder. Sponsorship may only be acceptable under the pretense that the journal can prove it is not and will not cause a conflict of interest. Although others might trust that this is the case, the safest option is to abandon outside sponsorship entirely in lieu of self-funding and anonymous funding. But, alas, this is idealistic, and it is likely that certain journalists may have to advertise sponsors to safely secure a wage. We should hope that those who must accept sponsors are cautious and diligent in doing so. Government involvement in private journals is incredibly risky. It is important for journalists not to turn a blind eye to the sins of their politics, as the sins of politicians are what could damage people the most. Government appeasement is unacceptable when it fails to act as a means for democracy to flourish. Transparency forces the government to uphold virtue. Corrupted journals are the shade by which the mold of government ill-practice can grow.

When a journalist chooses to write, the breadth of topics available to them is overwhelmingly vast. The information one may explore in this world is too deep to ever justify boredom within our ephemeral lifetimes. Yet, the information a journalist chooses to portray must be budgeted by a throughline: it should pertain to what is true and good. There are many specific ways to make sure such a throughline is maintained: speak to issues that are most pressing in their effects on the people, highlight examples of excellence or inexcellence, or present new ideas that are conducive to societal betterment. The most pressing issues are those that deserve the immediate care and attention of the people, such as natural disasters, armed conflicts, and policy change and enactment. Such events may pose a direct or near-direct threat to enough people in the population to warrant coverage, often leading to some evasion of danger, the encouragement of charity, and the reevaluation of decisions based on their consequences. One of the most powerful rhetorical devices in the history of mankind is that of example. Faith in example is what spurred the spread of Christianity after the martyrdom of Jesus Christ; it’s what led the most influential leaders in human history to change the lives of all those around them. Therefore, writing about examples of excellence and inexcellence is one of the most potent forces for cultural change. Cultural excellence may even derive from educational pursuits. Informing readers about the world and the people who inhabit it grants them a greater and more holistic perspective in a way that may positively impact their decision-making. The promotion of excellence in the arts inspires beauty, whether through the critiques of a review or the praise of a bygone style. Learning about the past, too, teaches us puissant lessons about what we should avoid in the future through observable action and consequence, as noted by historians as far back as Livy and Thucydides. And, it is not worth forgetting the power of the virtuous and charismatic individual and the positive effect they may purvey to others. The presentation of new ideas is a riskier path, but nonetheless worth treading if evidence foresees it to be fruitful. It is worth risking some degree of negative outcome in the pursuit of an even greater good.

In addition to detailing what a journalist should focus on, it is also of paramount importance to address the common pitfalls that follow when truth and good are not the ultimate goal. Their most common substitute is ideological reinforcement and profit zealousness. This manifests in a variety of ways: journals seek validation from their ideologically aligned community, remain in a place of ideological comfort (denial in the face of new information), and believe they will stay in business by conforming to a particular ideology, ultimately shoehorning their values in lieu of searching for truth. The business incentive is perceivably the most common among purveyors of information, with validation being second, and comfort being third. The business incentive occurs when a journal cultivates an audience of a certain ideological bend and, fearing to lose revenue, ties issues back to the preconceived notions held by the ideological community instead of bothering with correctness. They’ve pigeonholed themself, becoming a willing hostage of their audience and losing the journalistic integrity of being willing to risk universal backlash for espousing truth. Validation is similar in this regard but potentially even more egregious. All humans seek validation from a community, even if it means uptaking the goggles of a new reality. What differentiates seeking validation from the attempt to maintain business is that validation is active, whereas business is passive. Seeking validation is most associated with the common phenomenon of “grifting,” or politically selling out in a way that displays an utter disregard for the sanctity of anything that isn’t the self. It’s often used to rebound from career failure. For example, it has occurred many times that an online personality is outed for sexual misconduct, to which they attempt to inject a sudden, previously unseen hard political stance, scapegoating a political side for their errors rather than accepting responsibility for their actions. It’s a pitiable last grab to hang on to any modicum of relevancy that could remain by completely sacrificing their sincerity and candor. Although many see through this facade, the mentally vulnerable and those in denial may fall for it. Even if such an example is more overt, it demonstrates the difference between the unintentional cowardice of the passive as opposed to the intentional deceit of the active. Remaining in a place of ideological comfort tends to be less blatant, albeit with similar effects. People are very easily attached to their beliefs, latching to them and incorporating ideology as an aspect of their identity. This increases close-mindedness and lowers the utility of discussion, with thought-mobility largely coming to a standstill. This would make a journalist less willing to accept new evidence. These three manifestations tend to require a manipulation of the truth to be maintained. This could be through outright disinformation—a dishonest representation of the facts—or insincere framing, wherein integral context is discluded in service of the ideological narrative.

Profit zealousness, similar to ideological reinforcement, is embodied by emotional stimulation, this time being dependent on what will generate the highest amount of revenue. Ideological reinforcement often falls under this category quite well, but the delineation is made sensible by the fact that its throughline only bears overlap and is definitively a different phenomenon. Aside from ideological reinforcement, profit zealousness is often expressed through sensationalism, eliciting shock, fear, and/or anger. Journals will often value their employees on the basis of content popularity rather than inherent merit. Even if popularity can be warranted through high merit, it may also be garnered through characteristics that run directly contrary to merit, notably sensationalism. Sensationalism may be embodied through phenomena such as “clickbait,” emotional provocation throughout the article, and the siphoning of non-sensational stories away from reporting. Clickbait was a problem not quite seen until online journals, wherein website traffic may be divided by article due to the existence of subpages. Journals tend to display ads on pages and earn revenue through them, therefore being able to pinpoint which articles bring in the most revenue through how often they are clicked. The incentive problem comes about because not all articles within the online newspaper are presented equally; instead, it is easier to understand the likes and dislikes of audiences and decide the hierarchy of employees on that basis. This incentivizes clicking an article over anything, as the journalist’s position is now at stake. Unfortunately, clicks and reporting what is true and good are not always aligned, as humans are creatures easily manipulated by their emotions, especially when there are almost no stakes. A title that portrays a distorted representation of its contents but elicits shock, fear, or anger is likely to receive that click and therefore keep the journalist afloat. This is not to say that a title or article body should be devoid of a good hook, but only that such a hook should be nothing less than an accurate representation of its contents. Sometimes, not only the title is distorted, but the information in the article itself is for much the same purpose; it riles up those who consume it and attempts to increase the likelihood of their return and, therefore, the maximization of profit per customer. Such a scheme may be applied to a grander scale when the focus of a journal becomes sensationalist and profit-driven, containing articles that fearmonger and bait for hate, no longer deeming the space necessary for any article that may risk unprofitability. Although the worst consequence of these zealots is their falsehood, it is also worth noting that the keen-eyed reader will often lose faith in a consistently sensationalist journal, ultimately detracting from the credibility, impact, and potentially even the profit earned.

Similarly, a mode by which the focus of articles may best be conducive to truth and good is through the cultivation of interest. If there’s no incentive to consume the output of a journal, the aim and accuracy of the work are practically irrelevant. There are many ways a journal may accrue appeal, including entertainment value, personality, credibility, and superior merit. Entertainment is often found in work that enables emotional turbulence (dare I forget the irony given the dryness of this piece). Storytelling is one of the most effective means of selling information to an audience while eliciting emotion and connection through relatability. Stories are a fundamental aspect of humans and may be woven into many types of media. Stories in articles shouldn’t be forced excessively, lest they are perceived as a tired motif. The purpose of a story, in this case, is not only to portray a theme but to weave highs and lows—a sort of natural wavelength—into the flow of the article. Whether this be through the sad tale of a victim whose tale must be told or a victory that warrants joy and celebration, emotion gives life to words. Similarly, comical value cannot be underestimated in entertainment. People enjoy laughter. However, comedy is a risk and is best done when the consequences are not overly destructive, as humor is culturally subjective and in ever-changing motion. Jokes of poor quality are not inherently bad but may serve to deter an audience. The factor of personality continues the trend of relatability, combined with admiration. Personality is effective in its charisma, authenticity, and humility. Some journalists leave a greater impact when they are more than just a name on a screen, but a face. Now they’re human. Given a confident, charismatic pull, a journalist can be a leader. If they are genuine, they can be trusted, and if they are humble, relatability may be maximized. Such a strong character may serve as a moral example, albeit with the risk of increased scrutiny and higher moral standards. People prefer to follow personalities, and content that is personal is more effective in securing audience security than impersonal content. As much as they are cautioned against, aspects of a parasocial relationship from the audience members to a journalist may be one of the most effective and retentive means of delivering messages. Credibility can be accrued through various inroads, notably, recognition from credible organizations and an increase in popularity from outreach, especially through various media. Credibility grants more power and sway to the words of a journal and may make articles more impactful to the audience. Superior merit is the most self-explanatory; if a journal rises above the rest in its quality, people may be more motivated to read it, even if its name is not widely diffused.

Lastly, I shall address error and incompetency. This is the least interesting to cover, for it does not include dramatic accusations of professional misconduct. Nonetheless, its fruits can be just as rotten. It is likely that a journalist will err, but for the sake of this point, I am only referring to errors that have exceeded a certain threshold of significance wherein they may discredit the article and sometimes the site altogether. The more readily evident the error, the worse it is for credibility. Errors can slip by through small cracks, for people are often occupied with a plethora of things at any time, but crucial errors tend to be derivative of a lack of research and a lack of time spent on the article (especially in regard to planning, critical thinking, and writing). The sin of both of these is that they produce work that fails to be additive and can cause harm through its mistakes. Journals must deliver something that people don’t generally receive from an everyday conversation, lest they serve no purpose and waste the valuable time of others. Additionally, notable errors in a journal that spreads truth damage credibility and therefore turn people away from potential truth and good.

The mission of De Facto Times is to recertify the role of journalism in a time of information anarchy. The priority of the people will not be bought from us, we will focus on what is good and true, and we will strive for competency. Articles of De Facto Times will be divided into three levels: the first is a regular digest that reports news, the second is an essay that posits a substantial evidence-based claim, and the third is a deep search into a topic of intrigue. The first level will mostly deal with pressing issues, while the second and third will serve to demonstrate examples of excellence or inexcellence in culture as well as present new ideas. The focus of De Facto Times is generally political and cultural, with the encouragement of the arts in the name of cultural excellence. With the encouragement of the arts, I find that it is within reason to publish creative writing and artwork that we deem of remarkable quality on the site in addition to the expected societal commentary when the opportunity arises. We endeavor to cultivate interest and contribute to cultural flourishment. We strive for good and thereby truth.