Yves here. In this article, we explore the ongoing discourse surrounding the challenges faced by traditional journalism in an age dominated by social media. This narrative often sets up a false opposition between conventional reporting, which is depicted as being undermined by platforms like Twitter, Facebook, BlueSky, and TikTok, and more efficient entities, such as independent sites like The Grayzone and Dropsite, as well as insightful voices on Substack and the expanding YouTube and podcast landscapes.
The piece neglects the significant revenue decline within newspapers, which were once the backbone of reporting, owing largely to the advent of the Internet. The staffing cuts at the Washington Post serve as another example of this long-standing trend. Historically, newspapers derived around half of their total revenues from classified ads, with major outlets, such as the New York Times, capitalizing on lucrative “display” ads. However, the emergence of Craigslist effectively obliterated the classified ad revenue stream.
Additionally, the Internet has diminished the appeal of physical print media for many readers. Despite my preference for holding a physical newspaper (as it allows for quicker scanning of all the content compared to websites), consumers have become accustomed to receiving breaking news throughout the day. In the late 1990s, websites began publishing stock prices with only a 15-minute delay, further reducing the need for print versions.
Moreover, corporations and governments have become more skilled at managing their narratives. I had a conversation with a reporter from the Wall Street Journal who had opened their Shanghai office. Upon returning to the U.S. in 1999 after six years, he was taken aback by the transformation in journalism practices. The Internet had accelerated reporting deadlines, making it increasingly difficult to unearth the truth, especially as major institutions became proficient at presenting their own versions of events. This situation resulted in omissions and errors, providing a platform for independent sources, expert commentary, and yes, even social media accounts, to challenge mainstream narratives.
The reduction of news budgets has shifted the balance of power toward larger entities, which have excelled at practicing “access journalism,” selectively granting interviews and breaking news to key players. Journalists who produce critical coverage risk being excluded from the information pipeline, jeopardizing their professional standing. This situation has effectively undermined the credibility of major news outlets, boosting the visibility of independent platforms.
It’s important to note that this trend has deep historical roots. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post have been criticized for being too closely aligned with the intelligence community, viewing themselves as instruments of U.S. policy. The late Michael M. Thomas contended that the New York Times lost its status as a serious journalistic entity when “Punch” Sulzberger joined the board of the Metropolitan Museum in 1968, suggesting that he could no longer take an adversarial stance against the elite.
Still, the article, authored by a representative of the Naval War College, admits that early reports suggesting “Russia is fighting with meat assaults and shovels” were erroneous, attributing this to journalists feeling pressure to deliver concise narratives. This oversimplification overlooks the reality that truth often becomes the first casualty in wartime reporting. It also fails to acknowledge the extent to which even respected media outlets rely on planted stories. In his 1928 book Propaganda, the founder of the PR industry, Edward Bernays, scrutinized a New York Times front page and deemed half of its articles as propaganda.
By Charles Edward Gehrke, Deputy Division Director of Wargame Design and Adjudication, US Naval War College. Originally published at The Conversation
In the initial weeks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Western media coverage exhibited a strange inconsistency. Headlines fluctuated between certainty and confusion. One article proclaimed that Kyiv would fall within days, while another argued that Ukraine was gaining the upper hand. At times, Russian forces were described as incompetent, only later to be deemed a serious threat to NATO.
Analysts spoke confidently about strategies and morale, but often contradicted themselves within weeks. Many news consumers interpreted this as bias, either favoring Ukraine or adopting anti-Russia viewpoints. Some commentators accused Western media of promoting propaganda.
However, I contend that a more nuanced issue is at play. The challenge lies not in journalistic bias, but rather in journalism’s inability to keep pace with the complexities of the war’s information landscape. What appeared to be ideological slant was often a matter of temporal lag.
As a Navy war gamer, my primary responsibility is to identify institutional failures. Trust is crucial, and currently, the media is losing ground.
The chasm between real-time experiences and journalism’s ability to publish responsibly has widened. This gap contributes significantly to eroded trust. Social media collapses the distance between events, exposure, and interpretation, allowing claims to circulate before journalists can adequately assess them.
This phenomenon is particularly consequential in my field, where the modern battlefield transcends physical space. Drone footage spreads instantly, and social media platforms release claims in real time. Even intelligence leaks can emerge before officials can make formal responses.
These dynamics significantly impact the general public as well, which encounters fragments of reality, often filtered through social media, long before conventional institutions can effectively process and respond.
In contrast, journalism is designed for a slower-paced world.
Slow Journalism
Journalists focus on observing events, sifting through noise to identify signal, and translating complexity into coherent narratives. Their professional standards—editorial gatekeeping, sourcing protocols, fact verification—are not outdated bureaucratic practices; they are essential mechanisms that foster coherence amidst chaos.
However, these mechanisms were established during a time when information traveled more slowly and events unfolded in phases. Verification could conceivably precede publication. Under such conditions, journalism served as a trusted intermediary between chaotic events and public understanding.
Today, those conditions no longer exist.
Information now flows continuously, often lacking clear origin. Social media channels magnify fragments of reality instantaneously, whereas verification processes lag behind. The primary constraint is no longer access, but tempo.
Of course, journalists do often relay information as events happen, whether through live broadcasts or their social media channels. Still, within this fast-moving environment, the traditional strengths of journalism become sources of delay.
Excessive caution can hinder timely responses, while cohesive narratives solidify quickly. As a result, corrections often feel like flip-flops rather than revisions.
Covering Real-Time Events
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has highlighted this failure mode glaringly. Modern warfare generates data at a pace that far surpasses any institution’s ability to process it. Battlefield footage and real-time casualty reports inundate the information system nonstop.
Journalists find themselves in an untenable situation: they are expected to interpret events at the same speed that they are broadcast live. This often forces them into a position where they must improvise.
Initial reporting on the war relied on oversimplified narratives—depicting Russian ineptitude, promising swift victories, and outlining clear turning points. These provisional stories were created to meet the public’s intense demand for clarity.
However, as the situation evolved, those narratives fell apart.
This does not imply that the original reporting was intentionally misleading; rather, it illustrates how the cycle of narrative updates lagged behind actual developments. What analysts perceived as gradual learning and adaptation, audiences interpreted as inconsistency.
The Acceleration Trap
This dynamic forces journalism into a reactive stance. Verification lags behind amplification, which means accurate stories often emerge after audiences have already formed initial impressions.
This inversion alters journalism’s historical role. Audiences are exposed to raw claims first and only later receive journalistic interpretation. When these diverge, journalism appears disconnected from the reality experienced by the public.
Over time, this can lead to a fundamental shift in trust. Journalism ceases to be perceived as the primary source for event interpretation and instead becomes one voice among many, arriving late to the conversation. Speed increasingly becomes a measure of relevance, while interpretations lacking immediacy are discounted.
While partisan bias exists, it fails to fully explain the systemic incoherence Americans are witnessing.
Can Journalism Adapt?
Institutions designed for one pace rarely adapt smoothly to another. Journalism now faces the risk that its interpretative cycle no longer aligns with the speed of the world it seeks to explain.
The future credibility of journalism will likely depend less on accusations of bias or error and more on its ability to balance rigor with speed, potentially sacrificing the illusion of immediate certainty for the transparency of real-time doubt.
If it cannot achieve this balance, trust in journalism will continue to wane. An institution that was once crafted to illuminate societal issues is now struggling to keep pace with the realities that society is already witnessing.
The opinions and views expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of the Navy or the U.S. Naval War College.
