Julia Cagé: The media in crisis

The media is under attack. Reporters face limitations on press freedom, citizens’ trust in the media is falling and local newspapers in the UK and internationally are struggling to stay afloat. French economist Julia Cagé gives her diagnosis of the situation.

Photo by Mathieu Delmestre on Flickr

Julia Cagé is an economist specialising in media economics. This year she initiated the creation of “Un Bout du Monde,” a French association whose ambition is to promote media independence. Her observation: The fate of the largest media is in the hands of a few wealthy individuals who are the major shareholders. Her project: To take the media out of the pure market logic, to propose a new legal framework for the media that would increase the decision-making power of readers and journalists, so that they sit alongside the major shareholders and make their voices heard. 

Her flagship book, published in 2016, is entitled "Saving the Media. Capitalism, Crowdfunding, and Democracy."

What do you think a good journalist is? 

I would not claim to define what a good journalist is, but I can try to define what good journalism is. It is not necessarily a question of assessing the intrinsic qualities of the journalist as a person, but rather of understanding the working conditions that allow journalists to work independently. Are journalists given the time and the means to investigate? To write well-researched reports?

According to the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) press freedom barometer, France and the United Kingdom are ranked 34th and 35th in the world press freedom index. What do you think of this figure? 

It's not great. There are two types of attacks on press freedom. First, governments that try to limit the freedom to inform. In France, there is currently a proposal for a law on global security that forces the media to blur the faces of the police. As blurring of faces is not possible in real time, this law prohibits, among other things, the broadcasting of live demonstrations. This example shows how, through the use of the law, governments are placing restrictions on the work of journalists. The second reason for this classification is the increasing violence against journalists during demonstrations, both by the demonstrators and the police. Verbal violence against journalists is no longer a practice reserved for the extreme right. An increasing number of politicians are using populist rhetoric when talking about journalists. On top of all this, RSF's barometer does not take into account the concentration of media in the hands of a small number  of shareholders. If the barometer took the latter aspect into account, the ranking of France and the UK would be even worse. 

Why do people no longer trust the media today? Is this a new phenomenon?

This is nothing new. If you look at the La Croix barometer, which has been assessing the level of citizens' confidence in the media since 1987, it has never been very high. But the situation is getting worse and worse, and with the advent of the Internet, the level is even lower. There is today an over-concentration of shareholders who own the media, and citizens are aware of this. In France there are 10 billionaires who own 90 per cent of the audience. This does not mean that journalists are bad or that there is systematic censorship, but it does lead some citizens to be defiant towards the big media. 

There has never been so much media content. Yet in the UK local media disappear, especially local newspapers. How can this be explained? How is this a problem for democracy?

Yes, this is a big problem for democracy. I have studied the death of local newspapers in the United States since the introduction of television. There was a double negative shock: firstly, local newspapers experienced a fall in advertising revenue, because they were redirected to television. Secondly, there was a negative shock in terms of audience. Local newspapers lost what they needed to survive. In the United States and the United Kingdom there are therefore media deserts, which represent a danger to democracy. When the quality of local media declines, people participate less in elections and it is a breeding ground for corruption. There is no longer a fourth estate and this degrades democracy. 

The article "Internet and Politics: Evidence from the U.K local elections and local government policies" by Gavazza, Nardotto and Valletti, examines the introduction of broadband Internet in the 2000s. They found that the Internet has a negative impact on the consumption of local newspapers. This reduction in the circulation of local newspapers will in turn reduce political participation. They observed that in British cities which are poorer, less educated and where there is a disappearance of local newspapers in favour of television, there is a reduction in the financing of "public goods." Local politicians are disengaging from "free school" and "free health" projects, for example. The reduction of local newspapers therefore has concrete effects on governance. 

In both France and the United Kingdom, some minority groups complain about the lack of representation in the media. In the UK, this criticism was relayed by the viral circulation of the hashtag #AllWhiteFrontPages, which aimed to highlight the need for better representation of ethnic minority groups in the media. What is your opinion on this issue?

We don't have journalists in our image. Women are under-represented among journalists, but also and above all among guests and experts. The same is true for "visible minorities." The image that TV reflects of society is not an image that corresponds to reality. This creates a huge gap and also creates mistrust. 

On November 6, the American CNBC television presenter decided to interrupt the viewing of Donald Trump's speech. The explanation: CNBC refuses to broadcast the president's allegations unless they are backed up by facts. What do you think of this media move? What is the role of the media in the fight against fake news? 

It was truly an important moment in the role of the media in democracy. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter also decided to report Donald Trump's false messages. Twitter's policy, for example, has changed in recent weeks because before, the social network did not censor the message of elected officials. 

For Fox News it has not been an obvious choice, as it potentially cuts off part of their audience. But when Fox News announced the Joe Biden victory, they decided not to cross the red line that would have meant giving up the truth. There are a lot of subjects where you can impose a world view, which is part of pluralism, but there are few things that are as factual as an election result. They have decided to stay on the side of facts and that is very important. In the months leading up to the voting, Trump was trying to weaken the election, one of the pillars of democracy. The media, which is another pillar of democracy, said “no, he lies too much, so we are going to cut him off.” All TV channels managed to agree on the facts and this is what keeps the system going. 

Do you think citizens should have a course on the media? At a time when the Internet is blurring the boundaries between opinions, facts and fake news. 

Yes, it's like a history teacher explaining the difference between a history book and Wikipedia to his students. It is very important to show how to find sources and learn critical thinking. It is also important to show that it is not necessarily because there is an image that it is true. The intuition is good; see to believe. But when people see a video they will inevitably believe in it, even though we know that there may be faked images. 

In the digital age, much of the media is available free of charge on the Internet, which poses problems for the way they are financed. Some media such as the New York Times have opted for a “pay wall,” in which you can’t access information unless you have paid. Do you think this is the solution? Are people willing to pay for information? 

We will have to convince them that they have to pay for the information. Information has a cost, and if you don't pay, it's not surprising that the information is not independent. The problem for the younger generations is that they don't understand why something that was free now has a price. 

You often cite the Guardian as an example of a well-functioning medium, that is both sustainable and independent. Can you elaborate on why you think it is successful?

Firstly, it is a foundation, which means that it cannot be sold and this gives it stability. Secondly, it has a democratic functioning that involves journalists. Thirdly, it is a non-profit medium, so all profits are reinvested in the media. Finally, it does a good job of reconciling the need to be financed for the production of information but keeping it accessible to all. They push people to pay while leaving free information online for people who could not afford to pay. They do not segment the market between those who have the money and those who do not.