How Journalism has gone from an industry of spectators to an industry of spectacle.
When one thinks of Rome, they imagine littered streets of toga-wearing patricians and the en masse plebeians scattering a bricked road as they make their way for the spectacle of the Coliseum. Induced by the marvellous sound and the blood and power that the gladiators portray, we've traded the blood for a convergence of press insanity and spectacism - coin that word as you like, I personally induct it as where one develops oneself as a spectacle over their resounding necessities.
In the modern political age, the freedom of our press has been of great boon alongside the political divide in maintaining an order and keeping those with the gladiatorial power of old in check. But our press has now gone from being the observers, the questioning Senators to the lion's pit; the spectacle within a spectacle. You see, the press are a spectacle in the way the stars and our moon are. They light forth that of truth and the ever questioning perspectives of the masses. But news press have recently become more of a spectacle the same way cat videos and celebrity news are; the entertainment than the information that we seek; that of truth, liberty and the balancing of the status quo with personal freedom.
Some will undoubtedly ask "Hasn't the press always been an impartial spectacle taking place in the complacent minds of it's viewers?". Arguably so, there's no lie in the self-admittance that the press have always given spectacle to us as consumers, but it's the type of spectacle that has grown worrisome. In an age of Johnson' and Trump who act with the gravitas of a rock and the political morality of a toddler, the press rather than rightfully dissuade and commit to the removal of delusion that these men of power aren't to be trusted, thrust deeply their swords of impartiality. But impartiality doesn't mean committing press suicide and adding to a dying industry you want to save.
One main reason for the decline of journalism in the political age is because the state of impartiality has run amok. To quote a good friend, we've consistently for the last few years asked people who know its raining and believe who don't believe in rain that it's raining outside. We've asked the undeniable of deniers and painted it as if what the denier says is objective truth rather than for what it is; a bias farce. Rather than supporting open dialogue amongst people of equal position on a subject, the positioning has been shifted to create not only misinformative dialogue but that the dialogue is one of division and thus we find ourselves now consistently caught within a stationary position of divisive rhetoric; not because of the nature of societal discourse but because of who has now become involved in the establishment of the rhetoric.
Far-right/Alt-right speakers and 'thinkers' have become the epitome of elevation in our modern society because of the disillusion the press has with the primitive confines of impartiality and being champions of non-bias agendas... By then championing bias agendas.
I think to simplify, the nature of journalism has consistently championed the virtues of impartiality through a now busted lens; it's become a forum overrun by patrician-biased grievances and melancholy, business and capital infrastructure where the profit of readership has begun to way the scales more than the integrity of the writer, the necessity of truth and dignity and the passing of factual information. A journalist is a single pillar, that has now been pressured under a hardened marble roof by those with little business in the industry. Journalism hasn't begun to die because of a lack of writers; more so a lack of integrity.