Resultaten scenario-onderzoek
Commissioned by the Dutch Journalism Fund, Van de Bunt Adviseurs is proud to present Journalism 2035: four plausible, consistent and radical visions of the Netherlands in 2035 and the potential roll of journalism within it. Using these scenarios we will attempt to answer the question: if the Netherlands looks like this in 2035, what does that mean for journalism?
On this page you can read the results of the scenario study.
Direct to:
What questions does the sector have about journalism in 2035?
If you had a crystal ball to see into the future, what would you want to know? We asked a diverse group of experts and influencers from within and outside the journalism sector, as well as scientists and journalism educators. This resulted in more than thirty questions, which have been summarised as follows:
What can the government and tech sector do about it? How many people are influenced by it, and how does it affect society? What does it mean for journalism, and what role do journalists and media companies play?
Trust in news and journalism in the Netherlands has been high for many years, and appears to be stable. But at the same time, the number of people that do not trust the media is growing – and becoming more empowered. The fact that this question came out as urgent shows that the sector does not take consumers’ trust for granted, but that trust is under pressure due to increasing differences in society and requires hard work to gain and keep.
Are journalists, by law and in practice, able to do their job according to the ethical standards of the sector? This is not just about freedom of speech, a government that provides information when asked and editorial freedom regarding commercial interests. Unfortunately the past few years have seen an increase in the number of threats and violent crimes against journalists. To what extent will journalists be able to do their job safely? And how much does the average citizen care?
The media landscape will always be subject to change, and the pace of change is expected to grow. Will the media landscape become more fragmented, with lots of small brands and channels targeting like-minded followers? Will mainstream media with a diverse audience still exist? What negotiating power will media companies have against big tech? What is the potential and allowed degree of data-driven personalisation? How and to what extent are consumers paying for content?
New technologies and ever-changing consumer behaviour ask for new ways to tell stories and allow for more interaction with followers. More data, misinformation and disinformation make it more difficult to check facts. It is clear that journalists will need new and different skills – skills that are also highly sought after in other sectors. To what extent will it be possible to train journalists – and keep them? Or will we find the necessary skills by entering into new and different partnerships?
The influence of social media and search engines on the public debate is undeniably big. By moderating (or not), banning leading politicians and letting algorithms spread more or less extreme messages, they directly influence the public debate. How big will this influence be? And how will society and governments respond, for example by radically regulating big tech?
Events such as #metoo, the Black Lives Matter movement and the Zwarte Pieten debate show that there has been a social shift. Are editorial boards changing colour and becoming a reflection of society? Do different groups in society feel like they are adequately represented by the media and by journalists? Are media organisations capable of creating an inclusive working culture where differences are seen as a source of strength rather than tension?
How do intergenerational differences affect the ways in which consumers absorb news and information?
There are significant differences between generations when it comes to consuming news and information. Young people tend to prefer their news and information in smaller chunks and use social media much more often than the older generation, who tend to watch the news or read the newspaper at set times during the day. Older people tend to trust a certain brand and expect journalists to be independent in their reporting, whereas younger generations are convinced that news coverage is always coloured by a journalist’s or editor’s own perspective. They want the creators of the content to be aware and transparent about this. What does this mean for the demands we place on journalism? To what extent with journalists and media companies be able to serve both young and old?
Trends
Impactful certain trends
Certain trends are those that are expected to continue to a greater or lesser extent in the next few years. The eight certain trends that experts believe will have the most impact are listed below. These determine the playing field, the framework in which each of the four scenarios could become reality in 2035.
The deliberate generation of misinformation and disinformation by governments, activists, extremists and commercial parties continues to increase and will, in some cases, lead to information wars. The catalyst is automated content creation and dissemination using algorithms and bot armies, enabling more and bigger influencer campaigns. Journalists also increasingly encounter opposition from governments, running the risk of being at the mercy of information flows in the interest of the nation.
Robot journalism, automated data analysis and natural language generation are getting better and easier to use. They are increasingly used as tools to create content. On the one hand, these techniques make it harder to distinguish between different types of content; on the other hand, they normalise the fact that content, such as short news articles, is not necessarily made by journalists.
Subgroups are making their own media, driven by impatience and more accessible technology; they believe traditional media is taking too long in becoming more diverse and inclusive. The result is an intricate pillarisation of the media landscape in which every niche is served.
The number of threats and attacks on journalists continues to increase, making it more and more difficult for them to do their job.
A consumer’s media diet is increasingly personalised using knowledge of their interests, lifestyle and context. The revenue models (ads or paid access) are shaped by high levels of content personalisation.
Journalists must be able to work with different (hybrid) storytelling formats (e.g. audio, video, text). They will also need to have methodological knowledge (e.g. data analysis, statistics) in order to responsibly use data-driven technology.
Various media will start seeing each other as allies, not competitors. Collaborations between titles and brands are becoming normalised, partly because it is getting more and more difficult to carry out high quality investigative journalism. Journalists with different skills are joining forces.
New technologies make it even easier to set up individual channels and reach like-minded people, including those with activist and radical purposes.
The Netherlands in 2035 – in summary:
- Misinformation and disinformation are omnipresent and used as a tool by governments.
- More and more content is partly or fully auto-generated.
- The media landscape is dense, with many different channels serving many different subgroups and niches (including activist and extremist ones).
- Press freedom is under pressure because threats and violent crimes against journalists are on the rise.
- Content is increasingly personalised.
- Journalists need more and more knowledge and skills to enable them to analyse information properly and use a multitude of narrative techniques.
- Because of this, journalists and journalistic brands are increasingly collaborating.
Impactful uncertain trends
It is impossible to predict if these uncertain trends will persist. The axes were chosen on the basis of these trends. Combining the axes’ extremes shows which way the uncertain trends are likely to go in 2035. The differences that emerge then become the framework for our four scenarios.
The part of the Netherlands that feels they are not being listened to is increasingly setting up its own channels and infrastructure outside of the traditional media. Politicians are doing the same in order to reach their loyal supporters directly.
Governments are actively curbing platforms’ market dominance and data monopoly. The European Union is able to safeguard public interest by effectively regulating algorithms, data exploitation and ad tech. This will counteract the worst excesses that threaten the rule of law (e.g. platforms’ power monopoly, ‘out of control’ algorithms, fringe bubbles and the abuse of platforms for information laundering and attention hacking).
Public debate is hardening and we are increasingly confronted with ‘American’ situations in the Netherlands, where the differences between political groups are huge. The divide between rich and poor, urban and rural areas, vocational and higher education, young and old is growing.
Tech companies are reluctant to share how and the extent to which their platforms are used to spread misinformation and disinformation. Government cannot realistically demand that all information on a platform is accurate. Regulating shared information is not feasible, but regulating the processes themselves (like in the financial sector), is. This way tech companies can identify and contain the spread of mis-/disinformation at an early stage.
The power and influence of social media with regard to the distribution and content of journalistic productions/products is increasing.
Trust in journalism is under pressure. Consumers expect higher levels of accountability, so editors and journalists are providing insight in their ways of working as well as their sources and content creation.
Traditional media are unable to respond to an increasingly empowered generation that wants to be heard. The traditional media’s editorial floors are becoming more diverse, but it does not lead to real polyphony; the same homogenous group remains in power, leading to traditional media having smaller and smaller audiences. Groups that do not feel represented are turning to smaller channels that do make them feel included.
Journalism is under pressure, social differences are increasing and finding facts is getting more difficult due to the spread of misinformation and disinformation. This leads to broad (political) support for more funding for quality journalism.
Creation of scenario’s
Two critical uncertainties
Technology: to what extent are tech companies and data effectively regulated?
Technology is not neutral. The way it is designed and used reflects its designer’s or user’s intentions. At the moment, big tech’s interests are leading, and their influence continues to grow. Citizens and organisations are increasingly dependent on various commercial platforms and social media. Sharing data is often a prerequisite for gaining access to these services. Tech giants such as Google and TikTok are collecting data at breakneck speed – and data is power.
Technology is not neutral. The way it is designed and used reflects its designer’s or user’s intentions. At the moment, big tech’s interests are leading, and their influence continues to grow. Citizens and organisations are increasingly dependent on various commercial platforms and social media. Sharing data is often a prerequisite for gaining access to these services. Tech giants such as Google and TikTok are collecting data at breakneck speed – and data is power.
To what extent are tech companies and data effectively regulated? This critical uncertainty has a direct impact on the future of these developments. Will tech companies be split up? Will there be strict data governance requirements? Will the government provide alternatives, digital platforms as utilities? Or will the interests of tech companies continue to prevail and new technological developments be given free rein? Will a ‘digital Wild West’ emerge, where citizens’ data exist outside of the law?
Trust: to what extent do citizens trust each other?
The second critical uncertainty is the degree of trust that citizens have in each other. We know that the differences in society will increase further. The population is becoming increasingly diverse. The divide between urban and rural areas, vocational and higher education, rich and poor is growing. In addition, the interests of the different generations are sharply opposed when it comes to, for example, healthcare, the housing market and climate change.
This raises the question of how strong the social connective tissue is with which we handle these differences. Trust between citizens is key. Are we open and respectful to other people’s interests and points of view? Will we be able to maintain a constructive social dialogue across the board? Or will our differences lead to polarisation, fragmentation and suspicion? Will we lose all connection to those who think differently? Will public debate and politics be zero-sum games?
Four worlds
Both critical uncertainties are plotted on a two-pole axis. Combining these two axes creates a matrix with four quadrants: four worlds in 2035, positioned at the extremes of the matrix. Four radical yet plausible images of the Netherlands in 2035, with major consequences for journalism.
Scenario’s
Extremes (distrust & unregulated)
A highly polarised society. Extreme voices determine the public debate; there is no constructive social dialogue. The political landscape is unstable, which leads to a zigzag policy in government with damaging consequences for public services. Misinformation and disinformation are omnipresent and feed the already existing differences. Unhindered by regulation, tech companies use tools like clickbait, micro-targeting and attention hacking. Nothing is off limits to keep consumers engaged for as long as possible with increasingly extreme content in line with their beliefs. Classic journalistic values such as independence and truthful reporting lose their value in a fragmented media landscape with channels for every subgroup. Small start-ups capitalise on the latest hypes and large media companies either offer extreme content with which to exploit distrust, or cleverly personalised lifestyle content. The only way for creators of journalistic content to survive is to take a firm stand. The last remaining mainstream media are closing down because they have failed to engage a diverse group of consumers.
Money (trust & unregulated)
A world in which economic prosperity makes it easier not to problematise contradictions. We manage differences by ensuring everybody benefits, step by step, though not in equal measure. A layer of highly influential, super rich people is emerging, whose exorbitant lifestyles attract attention and set an example for many. Major data leaks have caused widespread outrage and big tech has switched to self-regulation as a response. However, this is mostly window-dressing as all digital life runs through their platforms. By choosing whether or not to moderate and using dissemination algorithms, tech companies are largely in control of the public debate. They have complete control over the advertising market. The stable, liberal government does not believe there is any support for drastic regulation of big tech as the resulting economic damage is thought to be catastrophic. There is a multifaceted and multicoloured media landscape with both mainstream media and smaller channels. However, the landscape is almost exclusively owned by a few commercial media companies. As a result, many editors and journalists are forced to make commercially driven content choices. And even though consumers have accepted the large number of integrated ads in their content as a necessary evil, they do expect journalists to be transparent about their commercial interests.
Bubbles (distrust and regulated)
A world in which no one can agree on anything, except the right to express one’s opinion in a digital environment without any real-life consequences. The government has intervened in order to safeguard citizens’ privacy and data control. At the same time there is fierce debate on topics such as inclusion and diversity. It is a multi-faceted society. Some companies and organisations mostly employ people of colour or the LGBTQ+ community; others remain conspicuously unicoloured and traditional. In order to keep this manageable the online and public debate has adopted an agree to disagree mentality: one avoids public confrontation in daily (digital) life. In addition, each subgroup within society has its own protected environment where citizens can speak their minds. Subsidised mainstream media do exist, but are struggling as they are not allowed to take a stand, and there are barely any politically moderate people to engage with. Other media and journalists focus primarily on their own loyal followers, people within the same bubble, who pay or share their data in exchange for content they agree with.
Careful (trust & regulated)
A world in which a number of large issues (e.g. climate change, diversity and inclusion) are being tackled successfully, resulting in a resilient society that is able to handle differences constructively. Citizens are self-aware and critical when it comes to their rights, particularly around data. This has given the government a mandate to radically regulate big tech as well as a base of platforms and digital facilities such as utility companies. Misinformation and disinformation are a real but manageable problem; citizens trust journalists to help them separate the good from the bad. Politics is predictable. The government believes in the importance of high quality journalism and financially supports local and national investigative journalism. There is support for a narrow definition of acceptable behaviour in (online) public debate, taking into account the perspective and sensitivities of as many subgroups as possible. Extreme voices are allowed to be heard, but there are no algorithms to amplify them, and without far-reaching polarisation they do not resonate. There is a broad, stable and diverse social middle ground, which is served by mainstream media.
Answering the major questions
How does society deal with the increase in misinformation and disinformation?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | The distribution of misinformation and disinformation (also by foreign governments) remains untouched because it contributes to keeping users ‘engaged’. After all, extreme content generates more clicks, which is partly why mis-/disinformation has become commonplace. The political extremes use large social media platforms to serve their supporters directly and on a large scale. Their messages are either vilified or applauded, which contributes to widening the divide in society. There is no substantial disproving and countering mis-/disinformation, not even by journalists; it is not profitable. Fact-free is the norm, and there is no point trying to convince others with facts. |
| Money trust & unregulated | The distribution of mis-/disinformation remains largely untouched, except when it leads to public outrage. If it is, for example, the result of a foreign influence campaign, big tech will intervene. • The political extremes use large social media platforms to serve their supporters directly. Their reach is limited to their own audience. Algorithms help reach these subgroups. The wider impact of mis-/disinformation is manageable because it does not resonate with the politically mJournalists and civilian collectives continue to play an important role in debunking mis-/disinformation and manage to maintain a shared basis of facts in the public debate. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | The spread of mis-/disinformation is somewhat limited because the government requires tech companies to have processes in place to intervene in case of large-scale spread. Despite the limited spread, mis-/disinformation reaches a sympathetic audience because society is highly polarised. The spread of mis-/disinformation is somewhat limited because the government requires tech companies to have processes in place to intervene in case of large-scale spread. Despite the limited spread, mis-/disinformation reaches a sympathetic audience because society is highly polarised. The mainstream media do debunk and counter mis-/ disinformation, but mainly on subjects that are not politically sensitive; they want to stay far away from those that are. |
| Careful trust & regulated | The spread of mis-/disinformation is limited because the government requires tech companies to have processes in place that can identify and contain the spread of mis-/disinformation at an early stage.
It is no longer common to be anonymous online, which makes a big difference to the number of ‘keyboard crusaders’ who further provoke potential explosive situations.
The impact is limited because mis-/disinformation do not resonate with the politically moderate. Journalists and civilian collectives continue to play an important role in debunking mis-/disinformation and manage to maintain a shared basis of facts in the public debate. |
Will media companies and journalists be able to gain/maintain consumers’/citizens’ trust?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | Broad trust in journalism – as a profession and as an important part of a democratic society – is declining, in parallel with citizens’ trust in each other. Broad trust in journalism – as a profession and as an important part of a democratic society – is declining, in parallel with citizens’ trust in each other. |
| Money trust & unregulated | The importance of journalism is recognised and consumers trust certain brands and journalists as sources of news and information. Mainstream media also manage to maintain the public’s trust. At the same time, commercial pressure on media and journalists is high, which means that many will have to make commercially driven decisions when it comes to their content. Some consumers are critical of how certain brands and companies go too far and start losing trust. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | Mainstream media that stay within the boundaries of what can be discussed in the public debate retain their role within the system, which does mean that their content is not particularly in-depth or stimulating. Mainstream media that stay within the boundaries of what can be discussed in the public debate retain their role within the system, which does mean that their content is not particularly in-depth or stimulating. |
| Careful trust & regulated | •There is broad confidence in the media and in journalism. The role of the media in a democracy is seen as essential and obvious. There is a downside to this level of trust: if consumers readily assume that journalists are doing a good job and their information is accurate, the sector will have an even greater responsibility to recalibrate professional codes, facilitating critical reflection mechanisms and self-examination. |
What about press freedom?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | Press freedom is under serious threat. Threats and violent crimes against journalists are on the rise as a result of mutual distrust, which turns into a particular distrust in certain journalists. Press freedom is under serious threat. Threats and violent crimes against journalists are on the rise as a result of mutual distrust, which turns into a particular distrust in certain journalists. Politicians structurally contribute to vilifying journalists; the government regularly obstructs journalists that request information. Free speech knows no bounds and extremism has become commonplace. |
| Money trust & unregulated | Threats and crimes against journalists have increased to a limited extent. Such behaviour is widely condemned by society. • Journalists enjoy high levels of legal protection. • It is getting harder for journalists to remain independent, as they are now more than ever dependent on commercial parties and income for their content creation and distribution. It is getting harder for journalists to remain independent, as they are now more than ever dependent on commercial parties and income for their content creation and distribution. Freedom of speech is legally well-defined; in practice big tech will moderate extreme content if it does not interfere with commercial interests. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | Threats and crimes against journalists have increased to a limited extent. Threats and crimes against journalists have increased to a limited extent. Some journalists work only within the subcultures’ online environments. The use of pseudonyms is common practice. • ‘Mainstream’ journalists receive a lot of backlash from politics and society as soon as they speak up, so this almost never happens. The government is reluctant to share politically sensitive information with journalists. • Freedom of speech exists formally, but is rarely used in public debate. The more extreme views are only shared within subcultures – the same applies to journalism. |
| Careful trust & regulated | Threats against journalists are made by a small group of extremists and activists. Such behaviour is widely condemned by society.. Journalists enjoy high levels of legal protection. The government is sincere in its pursuit of transparency and provides information when requested, which is facilitated by the absence of a ‘blame culture’ within politics. However, there is no getting away with writing whatever you want; the definition of free speech has become narrower and it is ‘not done’ to offend any subgroups in society. |
What will the media landscape look like in 2035 and which revenue models are viable?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | Mainstream media as we know it no longer exist as there is no target audience. • The media have become more dependent on commercial revenue and the willingness of loyal supporters to pay for content, as there is little support for journalism funding and the money has to be divided between an increasing number of parties. The position of media companies vs. big tech has deteriorated; big tech is in charge. As a result, media companies hardly get paid for online content and can keep only a small share of advertising revenue. Small start-ups capitalise on the latest hypes and large media companies either offer extreme content with which to exploit distrust, or cleverly personalised lifestyle content. • Private financiers see opportunities by financing journalism on specific subjects. This leads to commercially and ideologically driven one-topic channels that appear and disappear at a rapid pace. Most consumers continue to ‘pay’ with their data, which is traded and used to sell ads. A small group of rich consumers also pays for digital subscriptions and individual sales. Consumers choose sources of information they trust, and use this information to confirm their own beliefs. Local journalism has been decimated. Politically, there is no support for funding, and the power of the platforms makes it difficult to generate an income of one’s own. |
| Money trust & unregulated | • On the one hand, the market is favourable to large media companies because a substantial audience can be reached with only a few brands/titles. On the other hand, the position of media companies vs. big tech has deteriorated and big tech is in charge. As a result, media companies hardly get paid for online content and can keep only a small share of advertising revenue. A large number of big tech companies offer their own news content, putting further pressure on the revenue of other news media. There is a lot of support for large-scale funding of the most important mainstream media, but there is also an expectation to use all commercial opportunities to generate one’s own revenues. There is a lot of support for large-scale funding of the most important mainstream media, but there is also an expectation to use all commercial opportunities to generate one’s own revenues. • Most consumers continue to ‘pay’ with their data, which is traded and used to sell ads. A small group of rich consumers also pays for digital subscriptions and individual sales. Consumers want to learn about different perspectives so they choose a wide range of (news) sources. Local journalism plays an important part in the media landscape. There is political support for basic funding (for power control reasons). This partly compensates for the fact that the power of platforms makes it difficult to generate one’s own income. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | There is a small number of government-funded mainstream media left. They produce superficial content that fits within the narrow limits of what can be discussed in the public debate. There is a small number of government-funded mainstream media left. They produce superficial content that fits within the narrow limits of what can be discussed in the public debate. There is a market for strong opinions that coincide with the subgroup’s. The media have become more dependent on commercial revenue and the willingness of loyal supporters to pay for content, as there is little support for journalism funding and the money has to be divided between an increasing number of parties. The position of media companies vs. big tech has improved because big tech’s power has been curbed. Media companies are paid for online content and are able to generate advertising revenue without having to pay much tax and sharing their data – even if this is done on third party platforms. However, in terms of personalisation they are limited by regulation and citizens’ improved data protection rights. Consumers pay a lot less for content than they do now. Forms of payment such as digital subscriptions and microtransactions are now common alternatives. Consumers choose sources of information they trust, and use this information to confirm their own beliefs. Local journalism has been marginalised. There is no serious political support for funding. By breaking the power of the platforms there is room for generating an income through smart business models, which leads to successful initiatives where local problems are so urgent they create local trust bubbles of loyal followers. |
| Careful trust & regulated | Leading public and commercial mainstream media continue to serve a wide audience. The market is favourable to large media companies because a substantial audience can be reached with only a few brands/titles. • The position of media companies vs. big tech has improved because big tech’s power has been curbed. Media companies are paid for online content and are able to generate advertising revenue without having to pay much tax and sharing their data – even if this is done on third party platforms. However, in terms of personalisation they are limited by regulation and citizens’ improved data protection rights. Journalists are expected to provide insight into different perspectives. Their content plays an important role in keeping the social dialogue going and contributes to find constructive solutions to differences in society. Consumers no longer ‘pay’ for content with their data only. Forms of payment such as digital subscriptions and microtransactions are now common alternatives. Consumers want to learn about different perspectives so they choose a wide range of (news) sources. Local journalism plays a vital role. There is political support for extensive funding (for power control reasons). By breaking the power of the platforms there is room for generating an income of one’s own. |
Will the sector be able to attract people with the right skills in 2035?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | The sector is under pressure and has not managed to compete with other sectors that require the same skills – a brain drain that particularly affects digital and data skills. The profession is changing: high demand for extreme content leads to high production of extreme content, and journalists are increasingly choosing to go into journalism purely to take a stand, thereby increasing the importance of more relevant skills. |
| Money trust & unregulated | It is getting more difficult to find people with the right skills and keep up the high standard of independent journalism because other sectors are pushing hard and offer better terms of employment. However, a total brain drain is prevented because journalism is valued and young journalists are often intrinsically motivated. There is active collaboration with citizen collectives on large topics with big social impact. The sector offers opportunities to commercially-minded journalists with a talent for content and marketing, who produce branded content in a way that generates a lot of income for the platforms. This is blurring the lines between journalists and influencers even further. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | Insufficiently. The sector has changed dramatically. Mainstream journalism is of a considerably lower quality than it is now, and investigative journalism is as good as gone. There is no need for journalists with the skills to do independent journalism and find facts. There are a few powerful journalists in each subgroup who know exactly what that particular group wants to hear. |
| Careful trust & regulated | Journalists are highly regarded; the sector is healthy, which creates more space to offer journalists decent terms of employment, thus preventing a brain drain. There is active collaboration with citizen collectives on large topics with big social impact. |
Will big tech be setting the rules of public debate?–
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | The platforms use algorithms and moderation to determine what is/is not acceptable in the public debate. These boundaries are mostly determined by commercial interests, and partly by the brand positioning of the individual platforms (e.g. Facebook has stricter rules than Parler), and are rather flexible. Algorithms are designed to engage. Their design is opaque, just like their social and political impact. |
| Money trust & unregulated | The platforms use algorithms and moderation to determine what is/is not acceptable in the public debate. These boundaries are mostly determined by commercial interests, and partly by the brand positioning of the individual platforms (e.g. Facebook has stricter rules than Parler), and are rather narrow. Some tech companies and platforms are self-regulating at the urgent request of citizens (in response to data abuse scandals). However, this is mostly window dressing. Behind the facade data is still being collected, used and traded in abundance. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | A stable coalition of ideologically diverse groups has enforced regulation of tech companies and the safeguarding of privacy. • Legislation is only broadly outlined but does set limits to the most extreme forms of data mining. It also sets out minimum requirements to limit the spread of mis-/disinformation. • The algorithms are audited by citizen collectives for bias towards subgroups. Tech companies are then asked to correct any undesirable social effects. The algorithms are audited by citizen collectives for bias towards subgroups. Tech companies are then asked to correct any undesirable social effects. • Big tech is cooperating because it wants to keep as many people happy in a fragmented market, and also wants to make sure the rules are imposed on newcomers/competitors. |
| Careful trust & regulated | The majority of society wants to get a grip on the effects of technology and is pushing the government and big tech to create legislation ‘in the public interest’. Legislation has set strict limits on data mining and microtargeting, and includes far-reaching requirements to limit the spread of misinformation and disinformation. The algorithms are audited by citizen collectives for bias towards subgroups. Tech companies are then asked to correct any undesirable social effects. The government has set out strict rules as to what is/is not acceptable in public debate (based on a broadly defined principle of harm) and requires platforms to enforce these rules. |
Will journalism become inclusive and ensure equal representation for all?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | Representation and inclusion have become heavily politicised topics. Some subgroups embrace diversity, are careful about representation and have rigorous standards of inclusion. Others pursue a dominant culture to which each member must conform. The same is happening in the media. In this scenario the media are no longer expected to ensure representation. Media are either radically inclusive or radically traditional. |
| Money trust & unregulated | An empowered generation for whom diversity is the norm has taken over key positions, thus ensuring representation and inclusion. But this can vary greatly from sector to sector and has not yet become the overall norm. Traditional media are partly able to respond to an increasingly empowered generation demanding to be heard. The traditional media’s editorial floors are becoming more diverse, but it does not lead to real polyphony. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | Representation and inclusion have become heavily politicised topics. Some subgroups embrace diversity, are careful about representation and have rigorous standards of inclusion. Others pursue a dominant culture to which each member must conform. • At the same time, people realise that diversity is part of everyday life. They avoid public confrontation. The few remaining mainstream media strive to be a true representation of society as it is a prerequisite for government funding. |
| Careful trust & regulated | An empowered generation that sees diversity as the norm has taken over key positions, thus ensuring representation and inclusion. Traditional media’s editorial floors are changing colour, which leads to true polyphony. Power is with a truly diverse group, which leads to increased trust in journalism by groups that previously felt excluded. |
How do intergenerational differences affect consumer behaviour?
| Extremes distrust & unregulated | Digital natives’ consumer patterns are becoming the norm: absorbing information quickly, mostly in bite-size chunks, on various channels and smart devices. Consumers are open to new technologies such as augmented and virtual reality, and interactive storytelling. • A dwindling group of elderly people is less digitally proficient and will not or cannot keep up with this pattern. They have great difficulty with the disappearance of mainstream news media as we know them. Being at the mercy of big tech is a fact of life, particularly for young people. They do not know any better and share their data because it is part and parcel of daily life. People are rarely willing to pay for content. The different interests of the generations lead to tension, which also affects journalism. Young and old each have their own preferred media channels. Those that target the elderly opt for more traditional forms of dissemination and storytelling. They are largely financed by older, wealthy investors and used as a lobbying tool to promote the interests of the elderly. |
| Money trust & unregulated | Digital natives’ consumer patterns are steadily becoming the norm: absorbing information quickly, mostly in bite-size chunks, on various channels and smart devices. Consumers are open to new technologies such as augmented and virtual reality, and interactive storytelling. In their choice of content, mainstream media in particular take into account the dwindling group of elderly people who are not digitally proficient, and offers traditional forms of dissemination and storytelling. Young and old are aware of the importance of privacy and only share their data in moderation. People are increasingly willing to pay for content. The different interests of the generations do not escalate because of an ongoing dialogue and interest in other people’s perspectives. Young and old use at least some of the same sources of information; journalism plays a vital role in encouraging a constructive dialogue between generations. |
| Bubbles distrust and regulated | Digital natives’ consumer patterns are becoming the norm: absorbing information quickly, mostly in bite-size chunks, on various channels and smart devices. Consumers are open to new technologies such as augmented and virtual reality, and interactive storytelling.. • Digital natives’ consumer patterns are becoming the norm: absorbing information quickly, mostly in bite-size chunks, on various channels and smart devices. Consumers are open to new technologies such as augmented and virtual reality, and interactive storytelling. Young and old are aware of the importance of privacy and only share their data in moderation. People are increasingly willing to pay for content. The different interests of the generations lead to tension, which also affects journalism. Each generation belongs to their own subgroups, in turn served by their own journalists. There is little room for other people’s perspectives here; one’s own interests come first. |
| Careful trust & regulated | Digital natives’ consumer patterns are steadily becoming the norm: absorbing information quickly, mostly in bite-size chunks, on various channels and smart devices. Consumers are open to new technologies such as augmented and virtual reality, and interactive storytelling. • In their choice of content, mainstream media in particular take into account the dwindling group of elderly people who are not digitally proficient, and offers traditional forms of dissemination and storytelling. • Being at the mercy of big tech is a fact of life, particularly for young people. They do not know any better and share their data because it is part and parcel of daily life. People are rarely willing to pay for content. • The different interests of the generations do not escalate because of an ongoing dialogue and interest in other people’s perspectives. Young and old use at least some of the same sources of information; journalism plays a vital role in encouraging a constructive dialogue between generations. |
Scenario-transcending tasks for journalism
We discussed the results of this study with various experts both from within and outside the field of journalism. The focus was on identifying scenario-transcending challenges for journalism within the next 10 to 15 years. Based on these conversations we drafted five strategic challenges.
The four scenarios show that journalism in the Netherlands will be faced with major technological and social changes in the next 10 to 15 years. In all four cases there will be increased pressure on the current core values of quality journalism. Extrapolating the certain and uncertain trends opens up the possibilities that in 2035, ‘mainstream’ media have all but disappeared, journalists mostly make extreme content, the commercial pressure on journalism is increasing, or that journalists are expected to conform to the social discourse. These developments pose a great risk to both journalism and democracy.
We cannot, for the most part, directly influence the trends that led to these visions of the future. We are moving within a complex international force field in which big tech, among others, plays an important role. Driven by commercial interest, Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta (former Facebook) and others are exploiting the increasing technological possibilities to develop new products and services at a rapid pace. When they change their platforms or advertising algorithms, it has a direct effect on journalists and media organisations. Legislation that could influence or limit the role of big tech is often made at an international level; a very slow process. We can also observe impactful trends on a national level, such as growing differences within society and more and more violence and threats against journalists.
Balance between responding and agenda-setting
The media sector has shown great resilience over the past few decades. Whereas the previous scenario study showed great uncertainty around the ability of media organisations to break old patterns, it is clear now that the shift from print to digital and the expansion from linear television to streaming on demand have been done successfully. Journalistic organisations have become agile – sometimes the hard way. This was and will remain useful but also carries risk. When the emphasis is on responding to current changes, there is less of a focus on giving direction to the (near) future, which is of great importance in order to exert influence on the complex force field and retain autonomy as much as possible. It is necessary to find the balance between responding to new developments and following one’s own agenda.
Herein lies a joint challenge for journalism, science and government: to understand the volatile playing field, and to anticipate the right course of action in order to ensure a healthy journalism sector in the Netherlands where high quality journalism can be practised safely.
Balance between responding and agenda-setting
Joint strategising
Due to an ever-changing environment and rapid developments both within and outside the field of journalism there is a need for a permanent place where the sector (i.e. companies and journalists), science and government come together to monitor and interpret these developments in order to then decide what strategic choices and concrete action is necessary. This place should be a base where journalists, educational institutions and governments can remove themselves from the everyday humdrum and forget conflicting short-term interests in order to set a mutual agenda to influence the future of journalism in the Netherlands.
Misinformation and disinformation
The increase in misinformation and disinformation is a certain trend and a direct threat to the rule of law. Mis-/disinformation contribute to a society in which there are no common facts to base the public debate on. It damages trust in information and journalism, and contributes to polarisation. On the one hand the issue requires international action by government and big tech to curb its spread; on the other hand, there is much to be gained from the side of the information’s recipients, i.e. citizens who quickly switch between messages from journalists, influencers and anonymous posts on social media. This requires a serious investment in education (even more attention to media literacy) and information to make citizens more resilient and to enable them to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Representation and inclusion
A more diverse and empowered generation expects traditional media to embrace inclusion and representation. Society is becoming more diverse, and more and more people are part of minority groups. If journalistic organisations fail to become more diverse and inclusive (both on the editorial floor and in terms of their target audience) they gradually reduce the size of the group they want to appeal to and engage. Smaller niche organisations could make a strategic choice to focus on a small(er), specific group. However, this is not an option for traditional media and (local) public broadcasters.
Ensuring reliability and quality of journalism
The number of people who say they distrust journalism is growing even in the Netherlands – and they are becoming more vocal. Meanwhile, a shift is taking place: digital natives say they expect journalists to be aware of their own perspectives and biases, and to be transparent about this. This is more important to them than objective reporting, which is seen as a utopia. These two developments contribute to the erosion or gradual shifting of the core values of journalism and require a proactive approach. The criteria for high-quality journalism should be re-evaluated periodically. There is also a need for developing a methodology to determine and visualise what high-quality journalism looks like (and what it does not). The risk is that in reality, Twitter check marks or Facebook’s internal criteria might take on this role. Instead, we could look into the possibility of an independent authority, e.g. a more solid version of the Press Council.
Ensuring solid revenue models for (independent) journalists and media organisations
For about 15 years, the sector has been working extensively with the self-employed. Their rates are low, and, taking inflation into account, decreasing. This means that independent journalists are forced to practise their trade in as many ways as possible, and to recycle and offer their content in many different ways. As a result, the relationship between publications and independent journalists is determined by short-term, mutual dependence. Young journalists are facing a high degree of job insecurity, which is not desirable at a time when quality journalism is in need of more and more skills that are also in high demand in other sectors. In order to prevent a brain drain and to attract more talent we need improved working conditions: more permanent contracts and higher rates for content creators. In order to be able to offer this, the media organisations must have enough money to withstand the fluctuations in turnover and advertising revenues. The role of the government is to efficiently fund quality journalism in a way that directly benefits the content creators on the one hand; on the other hand government should enact legislation to improve the bargaining power of media companies vs. big tech. This will ensure that brands get paid more for their content, do not have to hand over all of their data and are paid a larger share of advertising revenue.
