1Providing information means answering questions. This first involves a stage of inquiring and investigating, and then one of notifying and sharing. The onset of COVID-19 aroused hundreds of questions among the world’s inhabitants. The pandemic, which so directly affected the public, might have seemed the ideal opportunity to restore the media’s oft-criticized image. The shock of COVID-19 was so intense that it meant the media machine could operate at full capacity. And the demand for information in March and April 2020 was indeed strong. The lockdown in France saw the sale of print newspapers rise. Audiovisual and online audiences grew immensely. And in May 2020, internet traffic on French news sites was 37 percent higher on average than in a normal month.

2But in almost no time at all, the world was hit with “COVID news fatigue,” as it was dubbed in the United States. By April, traffic on US news sites had slowed. Throughout the world, increases in readership and audience numbers began to flag, pointing to the public’s weariness with rehashed news, pointless debates, and a mix of government statements and shallow commentary. Plus, science takes too long. Research isn’t carried out at the pace of the 24-hour news cycle. The gaps between clumsy communication, dramatic arguments, and the snail’s pace of science made room for the return of widespread mistrust, simplistic viewpoints, and invasive conspiracy theories. Nothing terribly surprising, really. To understand what comes next, we need to take a step beck.

Stop following the news?

3Let’s go back to January 2020. This might as well be a century ago if we are to believe the current narrative, which focuses on disruptions and makes it a point to separate the “before” from the “after.” In January 2020, the Flemish-language Belgian newspaper De Morgen published an interview with the Swiss writer and essayist Rolf Dobelli, on the occasion of the publication in English of his book Stop Reading the News. [1] In the interview, Dobelli coolly explained that he hasn’t read the news for a decade, and that he feels all the better for it. In an interview with another Belgian paper, De Tijd, [2] he stated that he has felt happier and more focused since he stopped following the news.

4Let’s take a look at his arguments: “Alcohol addiction destroys one’s relationships; news addiction kills your ability to pay continuous attention to something. And that is a precious ability. Fewer and fewer people can concentrate on reading ten pages at a time. They are only stimulated by short bursts of information. In that sense, news is to the mind what sugar is to the body: tasty and easy to digest, but extremely harmful in the long run.” [3]

5For Dobelli, the news is no more than a series of calamities that trigger toxic emotions. He adds that “negative stimuli have a direct impact on the nervous system. We know that thanks to the theory of evolution. And classical philosophy has taught me that the good life is a life without toxic emotions. Once you can get rid of them, the good emotions come automatically.” [4] Also in January 2020, readers of the online publishing platform Medium discovered a spirited column by the trendy young life coach Ayodeji Awosika [5] listing the “seven habits of highly ineffective people.” The list, which is typical of self-help texts, begins with “anyone who says they ‘want to stay informed’ is an ineffective person—and they’re also ill-informed because the news is a massive psyop designed to misinform.” According to this peppy consultant, following the news is a distraction from your personal goals, does nothing for your life, and is a waste of energy that makes people irritable and depressed. Obviously, he and Dobelli share the same opinion.

Two fringe perspectives?

6Their views are not necessarily on the fringe. In that same month, January 2020, the thirty-third annual La Croix/Kantar media satisfaction index was published. It showed that, in France, interest in the news reached its lowest recorded level at the end of 2019.

7A year after the emergence of the gilets jaunes protest movement, 71 percent of French people did not feel that the media were providing “better [quality] and more” reporting on the things that concerned them. Media trust levels fell to 24 percent, the lowest in Europe, according to the 2019 Reuters Institute study. [6] The gilets jaunes movement was seen by some as a breaking point between journalists and citizens. Recall that journalists were accused of cutting the demonstrators off, betraying their interests, and simplifying their opinions. Some were even physically attacked at roundabouts (where gilets jaunes protests were often held) and demonstrations.

8More broadly, to stick with Dobelli’s themes, 41 percent of French people say that they aren’t interested in the news. This is the lowest figure since the La Croix/Kantar index was created: 28 percent said they were “fairly uninterested” in the news, while 13 percent said they were “very uninterested.” Young people (50 percent), women (53 percent), those with less education (54 percent), and the politically engaged (48 percent), but also manual laborers (53 percent) and shopkeepers and artisans (53 percent) tend to distance themselves the most from media information.

9As for those who do follow the news, they do so in a paradoxical way that shows up every year in the La Croix/Kantar survey: they tend to consume information via television (48 percent, rising to 65 percent among the elderly) and the internet (32 percent), or both—which they also consider to be the least credible sources! Although the radio is still the most trusted source (50 percent), the written press is at 46 percent and television at 40, whereas the internet (23 percent, versus 39 percent in 2015) reached its lowest level of credibility in 2019.

10Sure, the optimists will say, but all that was “before.” Before COVID-19, before the pandemic saw people rushing to the 24-hour news networks, social media, and news sites—people yearning for information, statistics, and eyewitness accounts, avidly following the controversies over lockdown, chloroquine, masks, and so on.

Moving away from infobesity (and the infodemic)

11But during the pandemic, were people actually becoming informed? The twin pressures of the invisible threat of the virus and the mandatory lockdown certainly led many people to glue themselves to their screens to try to get clear information about protection measures, the next stages of the pandemic, or potential treatments. But in looking for this kind of basic information, they found themselves swept up in the endless stream of reiterated statistics, contradictory announcements, controversies, anecdotal stories, and pseudo-expert opinions.

12The media sociologist Denis Muzet termed this cocktail “junk information” (la mal info) [7] back in 2006, by analogy with the junk food of fast-food restaurants and nonstop snacking. And it leads, quite logically, to “infobesity,” or information overload. This illness afflicts many media consumers who are pressed for time and constantly frustrated, stressed by the desire to get the next update on the story. The 24-hour cable news stations and social media sites provide these updates without interruption, by spinning up stories and accounts that promise a never-ending slew of new explanations and “real-life stories” so that you can be tuned in to “what’s going on.”

13These days, transparency has become a requirement in every domain, and many news consumers find it unbearable not to have immediate access to the latest updates (even TV shows are now “binge watched”). Waiting for the next installment is a thing of the past. We want to know right away if the chloroquine cure is effective. We want immediate information about the alternatives to this or that treatment, the origin of the virus, and so on.

14Under these conditions, the timelines of journalistic investigations and of research and analysis must be compressed. And if we don’t get our answer straight away, conspiracy theories are there to step in. Dr Sylvie Briand, director of the Department of Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases at the World Health Organization (WHO), has termed this the “infodemic.” This need to know everything right away, combined with a mistrust of the media, is fertile ground for conspiracy theories: the virus came from a secret lab, this or that expert is being prevented from speaking out, etc.

15To keep their audiences on tenterhooks, the same media outlets look for any opportunity to provoke conflict: combative comedic commentators, exaggerated debates, or a shameless mix of simplified news, outrageous commentary, and jokes. This is the era of infotainment, a mix of spectacle and news whose sole purpose is to gain as much market share as possible.

More information, or better information?

16This downward spiral explains the conflictual (and unhealthy) relationships people have with the media. How, then, is it possible to move away from these various contradictions? A recently published book offers some ideas. Journalist and economist Anne-Sophie Novel’s 2019 book is key to understanding the evolution of the public’s relationship with the media, the role the media play in our perception of the world, and the way it enables us—or not—to have a grip on reality. This substantial work, titled Les medias, le monde et no about the public’s relationship with the media. The mismatch between the demand for quick information and that for meticulous investigation, or between that for complete transparency and that for journalistic independence, is ever present.

Rebuilding trust in a profession

17What we need to do is both improve the relationship that people have with the media and rebuild trust in journalists. It should be emphasized that the public’s criticisms of the media in general have just as much to do with the journalistic profession. The majority feel that journalists lack independence, are too ideological, collusive, and shallow, and don’t dive deeply enough into their stories. [8]

18When I give talks to journalism students, [9] I always begin by citing the public’s lack of trust in our profession, so as to provoke a healthy reaction among the students. According to the international Ipsos MORI Issues Index published in September 2019, [10] for example, only 21 percent of the population considers the journalism profession trustworthy—just ahead of bankers (20 percent) and certainly far ahead of politicians (9 percent), but far behind scientists (60 percent), who top the list. The results of other French studies put journalists closer to real estate agents in the 20-percent bracket of trustworthiness.

19The sources of this mistrust are fairly well known. They must be confronted, at least the three primary ones.

20First, the advent of Web 2.0 has given the public the impression that it has direct access to infinite quantities of information. There is, of course, a certain segment of the public that trusts the media to filter, hierarchize, and validate this information, but many people feel that they can do without journalists—especially if they choose the information that confirms what they already think. Cognitive biases, and confirmation bias in particular, seem to form the backdrop of the digital information landscape. The proliferation of fake news is the correlate of these trends, but, here again, journalists are accused of being the ones propagating the fake stories. Even if they spend significant amounts of energy fighting against fake news, through fact-checking or getting it removed, they rarely seem to persuade anyone who isn’t already convinced.

21Second, the controversial coverage of certain events—the gilet jaunes protests in particular—has deepened the divide between a certain segment of the public and journalists, particularly the most visible among them, with television contributors seen as condescending and unreliable. We know that most people associate the word “journalist” primarily with radio and television news anchors on the one hand, and the legions of columnists, pundits, and editorialists emitting a steady stream of opinions, points of view, and commentary on the other. Although these two types of occupation are certainly part of the profession under discussion, they represent but a tiny minority of it and are not the ones that, properly speaking, produce information.

22The third mistrust factor is the fact that the acceleration of the flow of information has led to serious mishaps that have further tarnished the profession’s image. The events of October 11, 2019 surrounding the arrest of a man mistaken for Xavier Dupont de Ligonnès [11] is emblematic in this regard. The lack of thoroughness with which the information was verified has left a mark on the collective memory—that of readers more than of journalists, it seems.

23We must consider these sources of mistrust in good faith and without corporatist self-interest, and we must work to prove that journalism can be both a serious and a useful profession. I will not be addressing new ideas for institutional solutions, such as the Conseil de déontologie journalistique et de médiation (CDJM) (Council on Journalistic Ethics and Mediation), [12] a government initiative launched in December 2019. Instead, I will discuss profound changes that should be made to the way the profession is practiced.

Curiosity and generosity

24Allow me to share my own experience. As editor-in-chief at various media outlets, I have hired many journalists over the past thirty years. Over time, I have narrowed my selection criteria down to two primary characteristics: curiosity and generosity. I have come to believe that if all members of an editorial team possess these qualities, a media institution capable of winning the public’s trust and loyalty can be created. Curiosity and generosity, when properly put to use, produce journalistic attitudes and behaviors that forge a unique bond between journalists’ media outlet and its audience, one of interest and gratitude.

25This isn’t born of naïveté on my part. Finding and putting these qualities into practice is a sound professional approach. It is a much-needed return to the fundamentals.

26Of course, I am assuming that these team members have already acquired the basic technical skills of the profession, which is the case with more and more journalists today. Young journalists graduate from school with the fundamentals under their belt and the versatility that comes with those skills. So what sets a good journalist apart from a not-so-good one?

27First of all, a sense of curiosity. This comes to young children naturally, but tends to fade away as education takes over (“curiosity killed the cat”). The art of asking natural, uninhibited questions is a tricky one. It must be constantly relearned, and yet it is essential to our profession. It requires an open mind and few biases and ideological preconceptions. Good journalists have the ability to ask questions truly and naturally (to sense what readers are asking themselves), questions that go beyond the unimaginative list of who, what, when, where, why, and how. They look past appearances, official statements, and hoped-for answers. (How many journalists, particularly in television, go to the interviewee looking for the answer their editor asked them to get? “Find me someone saying x.”) Good journalists are curious enough to seek out the answers on the ground (to “question reality”) as well as behind the scenes, to check and double-check, to pull the threads even when it’s not a critical subject, when it’s just an ordinary one.

28Journalistic curiosity requires equal parts modesty and audacity: the modesty of one who doesn’t know about something and readily acknowledges this, and the audacity to seek out the answers even when those who have them don’t want to give them. The modesty of feeling like no more (and no less) than a link in the chain; the audacity to put yourself, time and again, in uncomfortable situations.

29This sense of curiosity, by the way, also concerns the public being addressed. Knowing who our readers are, who it is that’s giving us their time and attention, is the minimum courtesy we owe the public. By the same token, being curious to know what readers are asking and to heed their reactions is, it seems to me, one of the prerequisites of the profession.

30To understand how important real curiosity is as a driving force, one need only observe those who lack it: jaded, disillusioned, or ideologically motivated journalists. They’ve already “got it all figured out”; they have preconceived ideas about most things, and they think they know before they go and see. What they do go looking for—neither enthusiastically nor energetically—is confirmation of what they think they know. What can readers of such a journalist expect? At best, a confirmation of what they already think (too often I hear the label “good” applied to journalists who say only what people want to hear). At worst, bad service, background noise, a hazy narrative that, for lack of anything better, will pass for news.

31Generosity is the other pillar of solid journalism. Generous journalists want to share with their audience what they have found, what they have seen, what they have learned. They strive to ensure that this information is accessible, effective, and—why not?—useful. I’ll come back to that. Right now, I’m talking about that honest, enthusiastic desire to share the information one has found, gathered, built up, investigated, and edited. Being generous means looking past one’s own club and networks: I don’t write stories to cozy up to my sources, to garner currency with powerful people, out of vanity, or to look smart on television. I write for my reader (whom I have sought to become acquainted with—see above). I talk the way I would sitting around a table, as naturally as possible.

32Reporting without being condescending; accompanying the reader, honestly and without demagogy: that’s a skillset that needs mastering now more than ever. What form of communication should I employ to share what I know as effectively as possible? For high school students, I’d use this technology; for executives, that network; for a senior reader, I’d opt for such and such format, and so on. Generosity is about wanting to be sure that what we transmit is well received. In journalism, it’s also about wanting to provide interesting and useful information—and always more of it.

33What I’ve written above implies a conception of information that is different from the mere “news spigot” Dobelli criticizes and from the critiques of the “political-media” machine. Information could become a kind of common good used to make life in society smoother, to generate clarifications and insights that help us improve our “being-in-the-world,” and to feel like stakeholders in that world.

34Adhering to this approach (of information for the common good) are the new forms of investigative journalism, [13] along with one of the leading trends of late: solutions journalism.

Is solutions journalism a solution?

35Let’s return to the critiques being bandied about: Is the media a scaremonger making us anxious and paranoid? Why does it ignore things that are actually important, and only report bad news, or on wars and crises, murders and layoffs, the end of the world, and so on? Solutions journalism [14] emerged in the United States and Europe in the 2000s, as a response to readers who felt overwhelmed by the scale of the environmental challenges, wars, and crises featured ad nauseum in the media. (What can I do? What’s the point?)

36Certain journalists have decided to start covering initiatives that offer solutions, “good practices” that are verified, tested, sustainable, and reproducible (all of these words are important here). Don’t be fooled: this is real journalism, not just “good news” reporting. Curiosity and generosity are hard at work here: you have to find these projects, go check them out, investigate them, get expert opinions on them, measure their impact, and then write about them well. Everything that is essential to journalism today can be found here: professionals who are truly open and flexible, who want to bring the public information that has high added value.

37Note that solutions journalism does not come naturally to France. We in France are quite gifted at analyzing problems, contextualizing crises, explaining the scandal or embezzlements of so-and-so. Paradoxically, though, we are rather ill-equipped when it comes to the modest act of finding projects in the field with serious, innovative actors, evaluating those projects, and then writing about them clearly and concisely. There’s nothing terribly spectacular about this type of journalism, it’s true… except that it’s useful and motivational.

38During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Solutions Journalism Network, [15] an international organization, developed a toolkit to help journalists do this kind of work. It details basic reporting techniques: what kind of questions to ask, where to go looking, what the best practices developed in the last few weeks by various media outlets are, how to avoid the pitfalls of “positive news,” and what standards to abide by.

39In all likelihood, we’re witnessing a return to traditional journalistic practices, ones that have been somewhat forgotten amid the profound developments the media environment has undergone since the end of the twentieth century. But these are practices that also make it possible to shine a light on the lives of people carrying out projects and to cover issues that are both constructive [16] and “of concern,” even when they’re not close to home.

40Solutions journalism is not a panacea, but it does demonstrate that it is possible for journalism to rebuild trust—a critical element for any revitalization of the media. With solutions journalism, media outlets become vectors for the dissemination of practices that inspire hope. It gives them greater reach and impact, and makes them more useful.

41I’d like to end on the following point. One can imagine that the information ecosystem, which has been deeply marked by politics, might also be governed by rules that are more “societal”—that there might exist, adjacent to news coverage, a form of information production that is calmer and less intense, but truly useful to the common good. Curiosity and generosity could be applied wholeheartedly to the production and dissemination of such information, which would be intended to help society rise to the present challenges, such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Such initiatives are emerging, [17] and the public debate surrounding this issue is just beginning.