We’re All to Blame
Look, I’ve been in this game for 22 years. Started as a cub reporter in some podunk town in Ohio. Back then, news was… well, it was news. You reported facts. You gave context. You let stories breathe.
Now? It’s a damn circus. A never-ending parade of breaking news alerts, most of which don’t matter. And honestly, we’re all to blame. Media outlets, sure, but also us—the consumers. We’re the ones glued to our phones, refreshing feeds, craving that next hit of outrage or drama.
I remember when I was in Austin for SXSW back in 2018. Sat down with this reporter, let’s call him Marcus. Great guy, sharp as a tack. He told me, “Mike, the algorithm rewards speed over substance. If you’re not first, you’re last.” And that’s the problem right there.
Which… yeah. Fair enough. But at what cost?
My Editor Hates This
My current editor—great woman, named Linda—hates when I say this, but here it is: We’re not serving democracy. We’re serving clickbait.
Remember when we used to have time to investigate? To dig deep? Now it’s publish now, ask questions later. Last Tuesday, I was at this panel discussion—over coffee at the place on 5th, because let’s be real, that’s where the real conversations happen. This data journalist, let’s call her Sarah, she told me about a study. 214 respondents, all journalists. Guess what? 78% said they feel pressured to publish before they’re ready.
78%. That’s not a majority, that’s a landslide. And it’s scary.
But here’s the thing—we can’t just point fingers at the media. I mean, look at me. I’m part of the problem. I’ve published stories I wasn’t completley satisfied with because the news cycle moves faster than a speeding bullet.
And the audience? Don’t even get me started. We’re like drug addicts, chasing that next hit of outrage. It’s physicaly addictive, you know? The dopamine rush from that notification. The thrill of the breaking news alert.
But What About the Good Stuff?
Now, don’t get me wrong. There’s still great journalism out there. But it’s getting buried under the avalanche of “BREAKING: Celebrity X Wore Y Color to Event Z.” And even when there’s good stuff, it’s often so buried in the housing market analysis update housing market analysis update and political punditry that nobody notices.
Take climate change, for example. It’s the biggest story of our time, right? But how often does it make the front page? And when it does, it’s usually because some politician said something dumb about it. Not because we’re actually covering the science or the solutions.
I had this conversation with my friend Dave—colleague named Dave, actually—about three months ago. We were at this bar, right? And he’s like, “Mike, you remember when we used to have these long-form pieces on Sundays? The kind that made you think?”
I do. And they’re gone. Replaced by listicles and hot takes.
A Personal Anecdote
Back in 2015, I worked on this story. Took me 36 hours. It was about a small town in Nebraska dealing with the aftermath of a tornado. I talked to survivors, to the first responders, to the volunteers. It was powerful stuff. But when it published? Buried on page 12. Because some celebrity had gotten a new puppy.
And that’s the world we live in now. The trivial outweighs the important. The fast outweighs the thorough. The sensational outweighs the substantive.
But here’s the kicker—I’m not sure we can fix it. I mean, I think we can, but I’m not sure we will. Because as much as we complain, we’re all complicit. We all refresh those feeds. We all click on the clickbait.
So What Do We Do?
I don’t have all the answers. But I think the first step is admitting we have a problem. And the second step? Maybe, just maybe, we start valuing quality over quantity. We start rewarding depth over speed.
But that’s a big ask. It’s gonna take a committment from all of us. Media outlets, journalists, and the audience. We have to collectively decide that we’re done with the noise. That we want substance again.
And look, I’m not saying we should ignore breaking news. Of course, there are times when speed matters. But it shouldn’t be the default. It shouldn’t be the only thing we care about.
So, where do we go from here? I’m not sure. But I know one thing—we can’t keep going the way we are. Because if we do, we’re not just hurting journalism. We’re hurting democracy itself.
And that’s a price I’m not willing to pay.
About the Author: Mike Reynolds is a senior editor with over two decades of experience in journalism. He’s worked for major publications and has a deep love for thoughtful, in-depth reporting. When he’s not editing, you can find him complaining about the state of the news industry or trying to teach his cat to fetch.
