“Houston, we've had a problem.” It was with these few brief words that Jack Swigert, one of the three crew members of the Apollo 13 mission heading for the Moon, warned engineers at NASA's control centre on April 13th 1970 of the sudden drop in in the spacecraft's oxygen reserves. The astronauts' survival was at stake and solutions had to be found without delay.
More than half a century later, it is the media sector that faces potential disaster. The “problem” in this instance is called Trump, and the unfortunate people forced to plug the breach in the hope of escaping are the journalists. A crash-landing by these “enemies of the people” - as the new president call them - is guaranteed if nothing is done to correct things.
Amid much introspection after the election, the American press admitted it had “lost” to the Republican candidate. As journalist Kyle Paoletta wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review, it had fallen victim to his strategy of smothering, denigrating and bypassing.
Indeed, Trump won not despite his hatred of journalists, but because he orchestrated things so effectively that, in the eyes of his voters, these journalists became the “crooked bastards” he was denouncing.
We’re wading through the information sewers.
He wrung them dry by saturating the campaign with lies, fake news and clownish outbursts, forcing them into incessant fact-checking. He insulted them and threatened to target their sources, monitor their emails and phones, imprison them, block their access to protests, ban them from the White House, privatise public radio and television stations, and revoke broadcast licences from media outlets he disliked.
He shunned them, instead favouring influencers loyal to his cause who could spread his messages to vast audiences. He chose social media, knowing he could manipulate its algorithms. “You are the media now,” tweeted Elon Musk, owner of the social network X, on the day of Trump’s victory, marking the start of a new era.
“Our challenge is to realise that the first cycle of disruption is complete. We’re through the looking glass. We’re all wading through the information sewers. Trump is a bacillus but the problem is the pipes. We can and must fix this,” was the reaction of Carole Cadwalladr, a journalist for the British newspaper The Observer, sister paper of The Guardian.
If today the focus is on the ability of the American press to prepare for the attacks ahead, a critical reflection on its past mistakes is also important in helping to shape the what comes next.
Why did it fail to see that the flattering growth figures championed by Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, as she defended Joe Biden's record, concealed the growing struggle of Americans to make ends meet in the face of inflation? How, after the disastrous handling of Covid, could it overlook the widespread disaffection with the elites among large swathes of the population?
Did it underestimate the impact of tech giants injecting millions of dollars into the campaign to reshape the public media space and influence political opinion in favour of their candidate? Though it is traditionally less deferential towards institutions than in France, could the US press, in the name of “neutrality” and “objectivity”, have been blinded by centrist positions favouring the elites?
What is certain is that it failed; and it failed not by being unable to ensure Kamala Harris’s victory, but by being unable to stop a confirmed autocrat, racist, misogynist, homophobe and climate-change denier from securing both the electoral college and the popular vote. It failed to persuade the public of the dangers this fascistic reactionary poses to democracy in the United States and the wider world.
As the far-right gains ground across Europe, this defeat of progressive values - from equality to social justice, solidarity, integrity and environmental responsibility - must be seen as a major test for this side of the Atlantic.
Facts that impact on people's lives
This compels all of us, as journalists, to reflect on our societal role by returning to the very essence of our profession. In a speech delivered on April 10th 1907, media magnate Joseph Pulitzer - hardly a radical – stated that his Missouri newspaper, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, would “... always fight for progress and reform, never tolerate injustice or corruption, always fight demagogues of all parties, never belong to any party, always oppose privileged classes and public plunderers, never lack sympathy with the poor, always remain devoted to the public welfare, never be satisfied with merely printing news, always be drastically independent, never be afraid to attack wrong, whether by predatory plutocracy or predatory poverty”.
Against the poison of fake news and prejudice, however profitable electorally or in media terms it may seem, we must never abandon our journalistic ethics, and must always publish information based on corroborated, verified and well-documented facts.
“Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute,” wrote the German-American philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt, in her 1967 essay Truth and Politics. Our journalistic work, founded on thoroughness and honesty, is the guarantee of the relationship of trust between you, our readers, and us.
It is down to us, by publishing exclusive information that impacts people’s lives, to prove our value, article after article, revelation after revelation. Our news, unlike the commentary flooding social networks, can change the course of history; it can also help combat the confusion spread by influencers, providing clarity about the world as it is.
To counter the risk of disconnect that looms over newsrooms, it is essential to proclaim loudly and clearly that the public-interest mission of journalists is to return to citizens what is rightfully theirs in a democratic system: information about those in power, about those who make decisions in their name.
On society's side
Since Mediapart began we have been committed to holding financial and political powers to account, embracing the role of demanding answers from them. The complete independence of our economic model allows us to do this, as expressed in our slogan: “Only our readers can buy us.”
In other words, we do not represent the interests of a select few but those of all citizens, in all their diversity. Unlike mainstream newspapers that claim “journalistic objectivity” without recognising that they perpetuate the world view of a certain bourgeoisie, we reject the notion of neutrality, which is little more than a deceptive balancing act between different positions. Instead, we prefer to state our position clearly: we stand firmly on the side of society.
This is why, in our editorial coverage, we prioritise the challenges our fellow citizens face on a daily basis. Through our reports we document the rising costs of essential goods, the housing crisis and the erosion of public services. And through our analyses we strive to explain the structural mechanisms deepening inequalities.
To guard against insular thinking, it is our responsibility to make ourselves accessible to everyone, regardless of our readers' social or geographical backgrounds. The results of the US elections highlight not only the continued importance of factors such as education levels and urban or rural residency in voting patterns, but also the way each electorate remains stuck in its bubble.
It is down to us to draw conclusions from this and ensure we remain clear and comprehensible to all. At Mediapart our ambition is to reach the widest audience possible without leaving any part of our readership behind. We aim to be informative, speaking openly and honestly to our audience and without fear or favour, but also without condescension.
We must not let this stop us from defending our emancipatory values - quite the contrary. At a time when authoritarian regimes are winning battles, it is our duty not to normalise their practices and instead to denounce the risks they pose to civic life. This is the conclusion drawn by The New York Times, which has been criticised by some of its readership for downplaying the threat, as reported by Max Tani in the news website Semafor.
It is also our responsibility to understand the electorate drawn to the far-right. Through our reporting we must question them to better grasp their motivations while, through our investigations, revealing the true nature of the parties to whom they are turning.
Following Trump’s election, Katharine Viner, The Guardian's editor-in-chief, outlined what she saw as the task ahead: “We will maintain the important distinction between facts and opinion. We will seek to analyse and explain. We will pull together the global threads that make this election so consequential for the planet. We will energetically and forcefully hold Trump and his enablers to account. And, as hard as it might feel this week, we will try to understand the lives and economic realities of many of those who voted for him, while never making excuses for the racism and misogyny the election unleashed.”
Like The Guardian, Mediapart has made diversity within our team a priority. There is still a long way to go, but we are convinced that improving our accessibility requires us to reflect society in all its components. Recruiting diverse profiles is essential, with each person bringing experiences, concerns and sources that complement one another.
In the end, the fight for the right to know cannot be won without a collective awakening within the media sector. Fighting the concentration of newspapers in the hands of a few billionaires intent on defending their interests, regulating social networks used as weapons of destabilisation, and preventing tech giants from impoverishing the press by pillaging its information - these are some of the challenges we must confront.
These challenges are immense, but we cannot afford to give up. It is in adversity that the political and social utility of journalists takes on its full meaning. It is in times like these - of wars, a crisis in capitalism and the decline of democracies - that we realise the importance of our role as a countercheck to power. We are required more than ever to inform our readers honestly. We know how to do this, in the service of citizens: they can count on us, just as we count on them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The original French version of this op-ed article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter