Consuming the news these days is much like eating a McValue meal at McDonalds; sure, it's cheap and appears to be packed full of hearty content, but once you unwrap it and consume the first few (news) bites, you find it to be tacky and unsatisfying. Celebrity gossip and PR spin are infiltrating our news agenda as undermanned newsrooms struggle to keep newspapers afloat. So what is the future of journalism? News itself isn't dying. It's withering underneath the thick spread of trash, gossip and shortcuts, and it's not news as we once knew, but it's still there. Here's a broad five-point guide as to what exactly is up.

The Big Business Model of News

Ok, we'll start at the top, with the whole lot of squeezing of journalist staff budgets. Fairfax is one guilty party for shitcanning journalists en masse, placing the rest of their team on knife-edge. Their most controversial staff cuts came in August '08 when they slashed 550 jobs. None of the management faced unemployment, yet a host of writers did when their share prices hit rock bottom.

In response to the job reductions, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) launched a campaign labelled 'Fair Go, Fairfax: Don't discount journalism' to protest the job cuts and argue that such job losses would affect 'quality journalism'.

The MEAA argue that the management at Fairfax Media are "trying to drive down journalists' wages and create a company that produces low-cost, low-quality journalism - a clear threat to keeping you informed."

The fact that 80% of a newspaper's revenue goes towards funding the hardcopy, according to the promisingly titled 'newspaperdeathwatch.com', doesn't tie in well with the big business model either. Combine this with movement of the 'rivers of gold' classifieds from print to the (free and broader population of) internet, and an uptake on online news use over hardcopy, and you've got the beginnings of a shake up.

The Journalist to Public Relations ratio:

Stemming from the above point is one of the most cited problems with media at the moment. The Journo to PR 'consultant' ratio is way out of wack, with numbers greatly favouring PR.  When press releases are flying thick and fast, the overworked journalist gets sloppy and starts regurgitating what they ate off the free platter of pre-wrapped news, often word for word.

This isn't a recent problem, and dates back to that time any 'edgy' news watch team (yes, before you Hungry Beast) pulled the fake press release stunt, but does highlight the fact that quality and care is slipping out the door.

Quality Control:

When you don't have the time OR money to fund investigative journalism, what do you get? Tiger Woods is what you get. Tiger Woods and his extra-marital affairs. Gossip-worthy yes, headlining news-worthy it's not.  If journalists were allowed to give as much attention to their own backyards as they did Tiger, Wack Jacko and any other 15-second tramp we'd be getting somewhere.  

The argument here is that if it's what the people want, then that's what they'll get. Believe it or not, there are a shitload of strange people out there who actually want to know about how many people Woods is banging. Sometimes down to the very detail. Media organisations recognise this and so feed the masses in order to make a buck. They are a business and like all businesses, income often takes priority. The point is, yes, people do know what they want, but it's not necessarily what they need. It's like responsible service of alcohol; sometimes people just don't know what's good for them until they wake up the next morning. Unfortunately, the trash is what pays the bills at the moment, which leads into a vicious cycle.

The Fourth What?

Believe it or not, journalism was founded on ideals of equality; keeping the big players (originally those in power - namely politicians) in check. This does not mean the 'Utegate' scandal, nor disgracing politicians with (fake or otherwise) nude photos.

When the press gallery in parliament was first labelled the Fourth Estate, it was in light of the fact that they kept the other three (the power holders) in check by telling the people what was up. I refer you to the PR regurgitation and the celebrity blitz of 2009 for two failings of the media to the people. In short, the foundations of journalism get undermined more and more everyday, with trash.

The Online News Revolution

While not really accountable for the decline in quality, the shift to news 'bytes' and short sharp pieces of content are the new face of news. Whether news corporations will properly embrace it, rather than merely putting newspaper content online, is the key to their success.

The issue is that the once profitable nature of supporting online news with banner advertising, is now not so. Blame the economic crisis, whatever, but the fact is that a real shift towards online adoption is needed, which is likely to involve some sort of subscription. How the public will react to paying for their once free news will be interesting, but it already works. Crikey.com is still here, isn't it?

So, it's Over?

There are still glimmers of hope.

Take Gary Hughes, writer for The Australian. Gary won the Gold Walkley last year for his reports on the Victorian Bushfires. He legged it out of his burning hometown to write a two-piece, first-person feature on the fires and their destruction, Black Saturday 1 & 2.

It's the suppression of such journalism which results in where news is headed now, the regurgitated tripe with a focus on celebrity scandal over substance that actually matters. Just because it appears all trash and gossip, doesn't mean journalists can't write or don't care anymore.  

By Simon McCulloch