»I believe that journalism must change,« says Dirk von Gehlen, journalist and director of the SZ Institute, the think tank of the national German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. Gabriele Hooffacker and Nicola Moser headline their essay with this sentence from an interview with von Gehlen. He and other experts from academia and practice were asked about how generative language AI is changing journalism and how educational institutions should react to the rapid technological change. The pressure to adapt seems enormous, but the talk of »compelling change« does not necessarily conceal the idea of journalistic practice for more quality, more information and a more democratic public sphere. When editorial offices use AI tools to produce more content faster with fewer staff, efficiency and cost minimization are the top priorities.
Journalism cannot remain as it was, according to the experts. The academic articles and essays in this issue deal with what these changes look like in concrete terms. Jessica Kunert, Luka Simon and Volker Lilienthal use the example of the research network of NDR, WDR – two German public broadcasters – and Süddeutsche Zeitung to show how professional journalism is organized today through collaboration and, at the same time, a division of labor in order to enable in-depth research despite fewer financial and human resources. The researchers are particularly interested in work processes and problems of internal communication. Who works on what, who informs whom, what is published and when? These new forms of cooperation between journalists from public and private-commercial media require trust and repeated agreements. They are time-consuming and cost-intensive, but ultimately pay off because scandals are uncovered and those responsible are held accountable. However, research alliances such as that of NDR, WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung are also confronted with accusations of distortion of competition and cross-subsidization.
So-called »charitable« or non-profit journalism operates beyond traditional forms of organization and financing. It is not financed by contributions, sales or advertising, but by donations, memberships and foundation funds. Sebastian Gall and Uwe Krüger look at how to safeguard its independence. Using the example of the German non-profit newsroom Correctiv and its research about the »Potsdam Meeting« of high-ranking AfD politicians, entrepreneurs and neo-Nazis, the authors show how journalistic work financed by donations can have a social impact: Hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Germany against right-wing extremism in January 2024. Nevertheless, the problem of financing journalism remains, and that »non-profit« journalism depends on the willingness of individuals to donate.
So what is reported, which topics does journalism use to reach its audience, and which topics does it neglect? Since 1997, the Initiative Nachrichtenaufklärung (News Enlightenment Initiative) has been analyzing what is not reported or reported too little. It not only names the »Top Ten« neglected topics every year, but also criticizes the structures that lead to non-reporting. In their article, Jörg-Uwe Nieland and Hektor Haarkötter discuss research on the media’s thematization function, agenda setting and agenda cutting. They provide information on what makes an event newsworthy and why some news stories do not receive the attention they deserve. The authors see not only journalism, but also journalism studies and communication and media studies as having a duty, calling on their colleagues in the field to provide more public criticism and public scholarship to educate the public.
Enlightenment includes looking beyond the national horizon and addressing, for example, the presidential election in Romania and the situation of the media and political journalism there. Eduard-Claudiu Gross and Tanjev Schultz examine how social media, despite all promises of democratization, spread disinformation during the election campaign and ensured an election victory for the radical right-wing, pro-Russian candidate Călin Georgescu. As a result, the Romanian Constitutional Court ordered a re-run of the election in December 2024, also on suspicion of Russian influence. The use of TikTok by far-right politicians highlighted the disruptive power of digital communication platforms, but also the potential of professional, fact-based reporting. The election victory of moderate candidate Nicușor Dan shows: Media can be a democratic corrective and regain trust through high-quality journalism. But political journalism needs independence from platform and market logic.
Finally, the study by Ella Hackett, Teodora Tavares and Gregory Perreault reminds us that journalism is always also a struggle for representation and recognition. In their analysis of obituaries of US women journalists, the authors show how this particular genre conveys views on what good journalism is and what makes a good journalist. For the most part, the obituary writers pay positive tribute to the courage and non-conformity of the deceased. Overall, the computer-aided analysis of over a thousand obituaries of women journalists reveals a change in the »meta-journalistic discourse« and a different understanding of journalism: away from a neutral, distanced journalism towards a committed, value-oriented journalism as a place of social negotiation and emancipation.
Hence, journalism is constantly changing; nothing stays the same. However, if we believe that journalism must change, this should not mean that it must become even more data-driven and efficient. It would be better if it were more independent of market constraints, platform logics and technocratic promises of salvation.
The reviews, articles and essays in this issue combine empirical research with theoretical reflection, international perspectives with concrete case studies. They invite you to understand journalistic change, and may they also invite you to actively shape this change. We wish you an inspiring read and look forward to hearing your opinions!
Martina Thiele