The Biggest Failings of Quality Journalism

By Nadia Zaboura

Rarely have world affairs seemed so turbulent and the future so uncertain as they do today. Democracies are in decline while authoritarianism and fascism are on the rise. Amid all this turmoil – including its far-reaching consequences for German society – existential challenges confront German journalism. Disinformation and propaganda flood the information sphere while media professionals are exposed to increasing violence. More and more people are tuning out and turning their backs on the media altogether. The greatest danger arises when well-meaning supporters of democracy are no longer drawn to quality media at all. To halt and reverse this development which has, to some extent, already begun, we need to conduct a critical and unflinching assessment of German journalism. What are the reoccurring patterns of misconduct that undermine public trust and the transmission of evidence-based knowledge in both commercial and public broadcasting alike, from the tabloids to the broadsheets?

Take, for starters, “press-release journalism”. This type of journalism parrots content created by governments and officials at home and abroad without a word of criticism, regurgitating headlines, at times, literally verbatim. This journalism seems content in its role as uncritical mouthpiece for those in power. Political communication and its empty slogans are elevated to the status of news, absent of any requisite journalistic analysis in terms of content, source, or impact.

Then there’s the rampant use of the “he said/she said” script. Again and again, broadcasters employ this model to distort even the most established of facts into a matter of opinions. This can be seen in so-called debate formats, which prove a very easy means of avoiding the journalist work of fact checking. While editorial teams often appeal to the idea that all opinions within a society must be represented, their juxtaposition of factually unequal positions renders them complicit in shifting the Overton window, that is, the boundaries of what can be publicly stated.

Then there’s the questionable selection of supposed experts, who despite their lack of expertise, and their consistent misrepresentation of events, continue to be given a platform. Newsrooms feature such figures in the hope of pre-empting accusations of ideological bias, yet in doing so, their work is diametrically opposed to the goal of evidence-based, public-minded journalism.

Then there’s the myopic view of sources and perspectives both domestically and abroad, one that prioritizes speaking about people over speaking with them. Journalists on the ground are devalued, their authenticity and authority supposedly inferior to that of correspondents who are parachuted in.

Then there’s the curtailing of digital spaces for communication and discussion, precisely the spaces where society’s underlying tensions first become visible. Comment sections often go entirely unmoderated, despite the fact there continues to be a demonstrable interest in exchange and discussion. This interest could instead be given attention, journalistic direction, and protection in line with principles of human dignity.

Then there’s the ongoing eradication of media journalism, the remit of which is more important than ever. As an internal and external monitor, it is tasked with rigorously examining the media, scrutinizing its practices, and exposing its failures. In short, it keeps power in media institutions in check.

If it does not wish to vanish into irrelevance – or be scrapped entirely – quality media will have to submit itself to immense challenges both now and in the years to come. The areas of diversity of opinion and diversity in general, as well as problematic formats such as political talk shows in their current form, should be given special attention.

The journalistic failings outlined above are emblematic of the many further challenges facing the media today, from artificial intelligence and information deserts to peace journalism, from the regulation of hate speech to the generational task of focussing on the erosion of our planet’s life-sustaining systems.

The destructive communications strategies that have marked Donald Trump’s second term are currently taking centre stage. How can the media, including the German media, cover his divisive, maddening, and destructive policies in a way that is journalistically appropriate and that does not reproduce his statements? What broader challenges must German journalism confront if it is to avoid falling into the he said/she said trap? How does it avoid thus becoming a mouthpiece or stenographer for regressive and anti-democratic agendas, unwittingly legitimizing them with the seal of its profession? How can editorial teams anchor their work not in the logics of war and power but in the civilizational achievements of international human rights as well as the German constitution that both protect and enables a free press per se.

As diverse as these sites and subjects may seem, they each centre on a discussion about the nature of journalism itself. What is journalism? For whom and for what purpose? Where does it stand? Where is it going? Grappling with such far-reaching and fundamental questions requires not only theoretical and practical media expertise but also tangible resources in terms of time and funding. An urgent discussion on the future of journalism cannot reach a conclusion from one day to the next.

Despite the fundamental nature of these questions, journalism need not be entirely re-invented. Rather, it needs reorientation within a communications matrix that is undergoing constant change. It needs new processes next to those that are already reliable and well-established, such that it can examine itself and others for their democratic resilience with key questions, among which: What laws, written and unwritten, do media professionals follow? What values, codes and taboos shape their work, consciously and unconsciously? Which ideologies disguise themselves as non-ideological in a bid to make gains based on their supposed objectivity? How is all of this related to the distribution of power, particularly discursive power as it relates to the media? And what do the various answers to these questions say about the present state of public debate, about society, and progress, given that editorials are ultimately no more than a mirror on society as a whole?

This is a Herculean task – immense, but possible. This re-situating of journalism ought not, as such, be left to the institution of journalism alone. It must be tackled by all those in the constitutional arc of the media landscape, shoulder to shoulder with civil society and academia, in dialogue with business, politics, and institutions. The common denominator in these endeavours is as non-negotiable as it is immutable: a steadfast commitment to universal, inalienable human rights; to democratic values; to the incorruptible application of consistent standards for everyone and everything; to equality, without exception.

In closing, let us point to one enduring and reliable constant. For all the fragility and volatility of the postmodern world, media producers and media users alike can depend on one thing: wherever there are people, there will be stories. There will always be a biologically and socially inscribed human need for reliable information. Rarely has there been a greater opportunity – or greater imperative – to develop a realistic and optimistic vision of the future, a future in which the media, operating within a volatile communications ecosystem, return to what they do best: enabling free opinion-formation and public discourse through verified information, freeing them from disinformation, and accompanying them with professional moderation and analysis. In doing so, journalism may once again find a firm foothold, grounded in democracy and human rights. The journalism of the future is a journalism of trust and of learning. A journalism of values and of dignity.

This text is an editorially revised excerpt from the book “Media Between Power and Powerlessness. How Journalism Can Regain Trust” by Rainer Nübel, Daniel Rölle, and Nadia Zaboura, published in 2025 by Hirzel Verlag, 254 pages, €28. 

Photo credit: Shirin Abedi

Translation by Michael Dorrity