Can We Afford to Live Without Journalism?
Image generated using Adobe Firefly. A representation of the different mediums humans use to consume information.
Living in a one-bedroom apartment, my Mexican-American household had two televisions blasting in the mornings. In the living room, my parents watched the news on Univision. In the bedroom, if my sister hadn't snatched the controller first to watch MTV, I would have watched the rundown on KTLA 5 Morning News.
Watching these bilingual personalities inspired me to make a bold declaration that I would pursue a career as a journalist. I felt empowered learning about the meaning of "ethics" and "objectivity," standing in awe of the ability to keep people accountable by asking them tough questions and telling stories through facts. In a household where truth came in two languages, journalism felt like the most honest way to speak both.
However, numerous indicators suggest that this is not our current reality and won't be in the future. Americans' trust in the mass media is at its lowest point in more than five decades, and gaps in trust may persist due to steady generational gaps (Gallup, 2025).
A recent illustration of the public's waning trust in mass media emerged during the 2024 election. Candidates primarily gravitated towards more casual formats, such as podcasts, to convey their policies and personalities. The Week called this "the podcast election," and Politico implied that the "casual, testosterone-soaked banter" of bro podcasters was the winner (2024). However, their win was not about seeing their candidates victorious; instead, it was the admission, bewilderment, and envy by the mainstream media that these podcasters have influence.
The envy stems from these podcasters' ability to produce candid, genuine thoughts from prominent figures, often using more casual and conventional techniques than what journalists are rigorously trained to use on traditional mass media platforms. While one might be quick to label these interactions as authentic and entertaining, consumers must recognize that the FCC or FTC does not regulate podcasts and other internet content in the same manner as traditional mass media platforms (Sprout Social, 2024). Adding further confusion, some of these podcasters even refer to themselves as "journalists."
This unregulated lens presents a challenging situation. With the media industry's relentless pursuit of business objectives, such as drawing clicks and views, content creators are inadvertently pushing us deeper into a world where the pursuit of entertainment reigns supreme, and entertainment does not demand truthfulness. As Charlamagne tha God regularly states on The Breakfast Club, "Nobody cares about the truth when the lie is more entertaining." A 2024 report from UNESCO supports this observation, describing how we have allowed narratives of entertainment to overshadow stories of truth.
UNESCO published a global analysis of the motivations and practices of digital content creators, as well as the challenges they face. When asked about their fact-checking processes, over 40% of surveyed content creators primarily use the number of likes and views of online content as the primary factor to determine the credibility of online sources. Moreover, 62% of surveyed content creators revealed that they do not verify or confirm the information they share with their audience before posting. Recognizing their influence and the ethical responsibility to tell the truth, UNESCO developed a global training course for content creators.
Unfortunately, this erosion of truth sinks into the very platforms and systems that dominate our attention. Content creators treat likes and clicks as validation. Even brands and advertisers, although subject to transparency rules, often prioritize what's viral over what's verifiable.
But the decline of journalism isn't just a business problem. It's a cultural one. We're losing values like fact-checking, fairness, and accountability. In their place, we've elevated content that entertains and converts, but rarely informs. I once said I wanted to be a journalist because I believed truth mattered. I still do. What I couldn't predict was how hard it would be to know if anyone else still cares.
Still, I believe there's a version of journalism worth fighting for. But that also means holding journalists accountable. Has calling everything "breaking" broken our trust? Should objectivity mean giving both sides equal weight, even when one side distorts the truth? Perhaps the goal isn't balance but rather clarity.
Fictional shows like HBO's The Newsroom have received both praise and criticism for idealizing journalism as a courtroom, where facts are cross-examined and the public leaves better informed (U.S. News, 2012). Yet, when cable news has attempted to replicate this model, it has often fallen short. Instead of fact-driven inquiries, viewers witness performative debates that rarely hold anyone accountable. In the race for ratings, journalism becomes more about who can argue louder than who can ask the better question.
Like anything else in our media landscape, experimentation and reinvention are necessary to preserve the virtue of truth-telling. Reflecting on his exit from Univision, Jorge Ramos wrote, "...[T]he future is not in being an anchor but rather being a surfer. The truth is, journalists are solely creators of content that we must deliver to different platforms – surfing. And only the most credible and creative will survive in an ocean of disinformation, artificial intelligence and millions of digital sites" (2024).
The waves have changed. The tide is rough. Nonetheless, the mission remains the same: to tell the truth and mean it. For that mission to endure, we all must care, to recognize and support the journalists who continue to navigate these turbulent waters with integrity and courage. Because truth needs champions, and in this shifting sea, their fight is ours too.
