The New Front Page

The New Front Page Plot Summary

Introduction

The relationship between the mainstream media and its audience is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the rise of digital technologies and social media. This fundamental shift has created a new dynamic where audiences are no longer passive consumers but active participants in the creation, distribution, and analysis of news. The traditional gatekeepers of information now find themselves challenged by empowered citizens who demand transparency, accountability, and a voice in the public conversation. At the heart of this transformation lies a paradox: while the internet has undermined the business model that supported quality journalism, it has also democratized access to information and created new opportunities for civic engagement. The audience's civic and commercial relationship with media organizations has been redefined, forcing the industry to confront uncomfortable truths about how it treats those it purports to serve. Through extensive personal experience and critical analysis, we'll examine how the media's original sin—treating its audience primarily as a product to sell to advertisers rather than as citizens to inform—has created a fraught relationship that now threatens the very survival of important journalism.

Chapter 1: The Rise of the Audience: From Passive Consumers to Active Participants

For decades, the relationship between media organizations and their audience was fundamentally unbalanced. Media outlets didn't consider their audience as customers in the traditional sense, but rather as a product—the thing they sold to advertisers. In the same way that factories produced widgets, media organizations produced punters—people who lined up to watch shows, listen to radio programs, and read newspapers. This arrangement proved effective, making many in the industry rich, powerful, and influential. This model was sustained by two pillars. First, mainstream media outlets faced little competition. Starting a newspaper or a television station was prohibitively expensive, creating effective monopolies in many markets. Australia represents perhaps the ultimate example of media concentration, with a market controlled by a few major players, making it arguably the most concentrated media landscape in the democratic world. This domination gave media businesses enormous advantage, which they ruthlessly exploited to protect their position—pressuring governments for favorable legislation and using their market share to maximize advertising revenue while keeping competitors at bay. The second pillar was the media's collective self-presentation as a democratic watchdog providing a vital service, rather than as an industry corralling an audience to sell to advertisers. There was just enough truth in this claim to make it convincing. Major investigative scoops like Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, or the Moonlight State exposé provided evidence of this watchdog role, convincing the media of its basic integrity despite its other shortcomings. When the internet arrived, everything changed. As readers migrated online, newspaper circulation dwindled. Online advertising proved worth far less than print equivalents because advertisers could now measure engagement accurately. Classified advertising found new homes on various websites. The business model collapsed. Just as importantly, audiences became self-aware and demanded a say. Blogs proliferated, social media thrived, and comments sections filled up. The passive recipients suddenly became active participants in both production and dissemination of news. Today, social media has become the new front page of journalism, particularly for political reporting. The passive consumer-product relationship has been fundamentally challenged, and media organizations face a stark choice: adapt to this new reality by forging a new compact with their audience, or continue to decline. The future success of journalism that contributes to civic life depends on embracing rather than resisting this transformation in audience empowerment.

Chapter 2: Blogging's Revolution: How Amateur Media Challenged Professional Gatekeeping

The early 2000s witnessed the birth of political blogging as a significant force, emerging in response to world-changing events. Following the September 11 attacks and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, a critical mass of engaged citizens found their voices through this new medium. What began as a seemingly modest technological innovation—personal websites where individuals could publish their thoughts—evolved into a powerful challenge to traditional media's monopoly on public discourse. Unlike professional journalists who relied on anonymous sources, insider access, and what New York University professor Jay Rosen calls "savviness" (a kind of smug knowingness about how politics "really" works), bloggers developed a different approach. They relied heavily on publicly available documents, transcripts, and other primary sources. They meticulously researched and linked to their sources, allowing readers to verify information independently. This transparency stood in stark contrast to the opacity that often characterized mainstream reporting. The Iraq War became a pivotal moment for blogging's credibility. While much of the mainstream media failed to critically examine the Bush administration's case for invasion, many bloggers remained skeptical. They pored over UN weapons inspector reports, analyzed contradictory statements by officials, and questioned the evidence being presented. In many cases, their analysis proved more accurate than traditional reporting, raising a troubling question: If amateur writers could see through the deception while professionals could not, what else was the mainstream getting wrong? Blogging fundamentally altered the relationship between information providers and consumers. It wasn't merely a species of journalism; it was a species of citizenship. Bloggers weren't trying to report; they were trying to understand or express opinions. They became not only the most attentive audience the mainstream media ever had but also its sharpest critics. By riffing on content found in mainstream sources—much like British rock musicians did with American blues—bloggers transformed the material, added value, and presented it in ways that resonated with audiences being ignored by traditional outlets. This shift wasn't just about who could publish; it was about the nature of public conversation itself. Blogs created spaces where experts and ordinary citizens could interact as equals, where traditional credentials mattered less than the quality of one's arguments. For the first time, a significant portion of the citizenry could actively participate in creating and disseminating information about major events. This was democracy as if citizenship mattered, and the thrill of participation was undeniable. The mainstream media's initial response was largely defensive and dismissive. Rather than learning from what bloggers were doing, many journalists denigrated the form, characterizing bloggers as "pajama-wearing buffoons" or unqualified amateurs. This reaction revealed the industry's discomfort with losing its gatekeeping function and having to engage with an empowered audience. By refusing to adapt, traditional media organizations delayed by at least a decade the necessary reinvention their business required in this new environment.

Chapter 3: Inside the Mainstream: When New Media Met Old Institutions

The collision between traditional journalism and the emerging blogosphere created fascinating hybrid experiments as news organizations attempted to integrate new forms of audience engagement. One pioneering effort came from journalist Margo Kingston, who in 2000 launched Webdiary at the Sydney Morning Herald website. This experiment represented one of the first attempts by a mainstream Australian publication to embrace interactive journalism and direct audience participation. Kingston's approach was revolutionary for its time. She allowed readers to submit content that she would publish alongside her own, engaged with them in good faith, and addressed their concerns directly. The site became a space for genuine conversation between a journalist and her audience. "I'd say on Webdiary, 'The Herald has just sent this list of questions to Peter Reith. This is what he needs to answer,'" Kingston recalled. This transparency about the journalistic process was virtually unheard of in mainstream media. However, this openness created tension within the organization. Kingston faced resistance from management who were uncomfortable with her revealing the inner workings of journalism and directly engaging with readers as equals. When Kingston began discussing with her audience which questions journalists should be asking, she encountered opposition. "The Herald has just sent this list of questions to Peter Reith. This is what he needs to answer," she would write on Webdiary. Her superiors were unhappy with this level of transparency, seeing it as undermining professional authority. What made Kingston's work particularly significant was that it represented a fundamental shift in the power dynamic between journalist and audience. By allowing readers not just to comment but to contribute substantive content and help shape coverage, she was relinquishing some of the gatekeeping power traditionally held by journalists. This redistribution of power threatened established hierarchies within media organizations, which historically operated in a top-down manner, controlling which voices were heard in public discourse. Despite growing readership and Kingston's innovative approach to audience engagement, Webdiary ultimately ended when management attempted to impose greater editorial control over the site. They wanted to eliminate Kingston's code of ethics, stop publishing regular contributions from readers, and require all her posts to go through a vetting process. These demands violated the interactive nature Webdiary had developed and the relationship of trust Kingston had built with her audience. The story of Webdiary illustrates the fundamental tension that still exists today—between the media's desire to control information and the audience's growing expectation for transparency and participation. Kingston was 15 years ahead of virtually everyone else in Australian journalism, practicing principles that are now widely recognized as essential for digital journalism's future. Her experience demonstrates that successful audience engagement isn't just about technology—it's about a willingness to share power and recognize readers as equal participants in democratic discourse.

Chapter 4: The Rules of Engagement: Navigating the Public-Journalist Relationship

The management of online communities represents one of the most challenging aspects of digital journalism. While much attention focuses on the technology and business models, the human dynamics of moderating comments and fostering constructive discussion require equal consideration. This invisible labor forms the foundation of meaningful audience engagement but remains poorly understood by many media executives. Managing comments sections is extraordinarily time-intensive. During the operation of political blogs like Blogocracy at News Limited, moderators would begin work early each morning, approving overnight comments while simultaneously writing new content. Throughout the day, they would continually switch between content creation and moderation duties, responding to readers and guiding discussions. This process often extended well into the evening, creating workdays that could stretch from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The sheer volume of comments, combined with legal concerns and the desire to maintain conversational quality, made moderation an all-consuming task. The approach to moderation reflects fundamental philosophical differences about the nature of public discussion. Some sites adopt a hands-off policy regarding moderation, believing that any interference with speech is undesirable. Others actively encourage provocative comments—as long as they target ideological opponents. Most commonly, moderators attempt to strike a balance between allowing robust debate while maintaining basic civility, though finding this equilibrium proves endlessly challenging. "The line between passionate engagement and civility seems chronically fuzzy and arbitrary," as academic Susan Herbst notes. Standards for comments have evolved over time as practitioners gained experience. Early bloggers often allowed nearly unlimited freedom in their comments sections, placing few restrictions on content or comment length. As traffic grew and the burden of moderation increased, more structured approaches emerged. John Quiggin, for instance, pioneered a no-swearing rule on his blog and later introduced specialized threads for different types of conversation, including a "Sandpit" for lengthy debates that might derail the main discussion. The New York Times developed the concept of "trusted commenters" whose contributions bypass moderation queues. The challenge of moderation reveals a fundamental tension between the ideal of open participation and the practical realities of managing online communities. The commitment to openness that characterized early blogging has gradually given way to more managed interaction as practitioners recognized that completely unregulated spaces often become dominated by the most aggressive voices, silencing others. The libertarian's dilemma becomes apparent: unregulated free speech can actually undermine the freedom of less aggressive community members by creating environments too hostile to enter. Despite these challenges, successful comment sections demonstrate that audience engagement isn't merely a problem to be managed but a resource to be cultivated. When properly moderated, comments can become self-policing communities that add substantial value to journalism. The relationship between content producers and their audience is not just about customer service—it's about creating spaces where citizens can participate meaningfully in democratic discourse. This requires not just technological solutions but a fundamental rethinking of the journalist-audience relationship.

Chapter 5: Trolls and Echo Chambers: Deconstructing Media Narratives About Online Discourse

The mainstream media's portrayal of online discourse has been dominated by two persistent narratives: the rise of "trolling" and the proliferation of "echo chambers." While these phenomena exist in some form, their definition and significance have been systematically distorted in ways that serve the interests of traditional media institutions struggling to maintain their cultural authority in the digital age. The term "trolling" has undergone a significant shift in meaning. Originally, it referred specifically to disruptive behavior intended to provoke emotional responses and derail normal conversation. Today, mainstream media uses it to describe virtually any online behavior they deem offensive or unacceptable. This redefinition transforms a specific online behavior into a catch-all term for criticizing the legitimacy of ordinary people participating in public discourse. What's particularly striking about campaigns against "trolling" is how they frame the power dynamic: they consistently position journalists, celebrities, and politicians as victims, while portraying ordinary citizens as perpetrators. The Telegraph's 2012 anti-trolling campaign exemplifies this framing. Focused primarily on attacks against celebrities and sports stars, the paper used portentous language to characterize ordinary people's behavior as an existential threat requiring governmental intervention. The campaign largely ignored similar behavior on the Telegraph's own comment sections while directing attention specifically at Twitter, a platform that had become a competitor. This selective outrage reveals how concerns about "trolling" often mask anxiety about losing control over public discourse. Similarly, the "echo chamber" narrative suggests that social media users primarily seek out information that confirms their existing beliefs, unlike the supposedly objective mainstream media. This accusation is frequently leveled at social media users despite evidence suggesting otherwise. Studies examining actual online behavior have found that many internet users actively seek out diverse viewpoints, with significant percentages preferring sources that challenge rather than reinforce their beliefs. Meanwhile, traditional media outlets—particularly those making the loudest claims about echo chambers—often exhibit precisely the insularity they criticize in others. These narratives represent strategic deployments of the concept of civility. As Susan Herbst argues, civility is not a fixed standard but rather a malleable concept used to achieve particular ends in democratic debate. When mainstream media organizations campaign against "trolls" while employing columnists who regularly use inflammatory language, they are not defending civility but asserting their primacy as gatekeepers. The double standard becomes apparent when journalists who cultivate controversy through provocative statements express shock at receiving critical responses. The disproportionate focus on online incivility diverts attention from more serious abuses of power. The isolated cases of anonymous commenters making offensive remarks pale in comparison to the systematic campaigns major media outlets sometimes wage against their targets. Robert Manne documented The Australian newspaper's campaign against academic Margaret Simons, which devoted over 6,000 words across multiple stories to what Manne called "the most egregious non-story of the year." Such institutional abuse of power receives far less critical attention than the behavior of individual social media users. Rather than endlessly debating what constitutes acceptable online behavior, we should be asking a more fundamental question: Do we want both depth of debate and the work that comes with it? Engaging people in meaningful democratic conversation is difficult and expensive, but it's essential for any media organization that claims to be a fourth estate. The evidence suggests many in the mainstream are unwilling to do this hard work, preferring instead to marginalize critical voices as "trolls" while continuing business as usual.

Chapter 6: Understanding the Audience: Beyond Demographic Data and Commercial Metrics

Media organizations today possess unprecedented capacity to monitor their audiences. Digital analytics allow them to track exactly what readers view, which advertisements they click, how long they remain on a page, and where they go afterward. Yet despite this wealth of data, many legacy media organizations struggle to survive. This paradox reveals a fundamental limitation in how the industry understands its audience—treating quantitative metrics as definitive truth rather than as partial indicators requiring contextual interpretation. The prevailing wisdom among the political class is that ordinary citizens are disengaged from politics. This presumption profoundly influences how news is reported and presented. Data compiled by researcher Sally Young suggests that approximately 5 percent of Australians are highly interested and engaged in formal politics, while 12-20 percent are indifferent or uninterested. The majority fall somewhere between these extremes. Young distinguishes between an "elite news audience" (older, predominantly male, tertiary-educated, well-paid professionals) and a "popular news audience" (more diverse, including more women, young people, and lower-income individuals). However, these categories oversimplify a complex reality. The metrics themselves reflect not what people inherently want, but rather how they choose from the options currently available. As Jana Wendt, once Australia's highest-paid journalist, observed: "If Mrs X switched off at 6:45, there must be something wrong with the story we ran at 6:45... not just something wrong with the way they did the story, but something fundamentally wrong with the very subject matter." This interpretation assumes audience disinterest rather than considering the possibility that the presentation failed to engage them. The data reveals another paradox worth exploring: while most Australians report limited interest in politics specifically, over 80 percent regularly follow news. General news, sports, and entertainment rank highest in preference, with "political analysis" ranking last. Rather than indicating a fundamental disinterest in politics, this may suggest dissatisfaction with how politics is conducted and reported. As Young notes, "Is this because people were interested in traditional politics but found its actual conduct disappointing? Or was it because people were dissatisfied with the way the media reported politics?" The interpretation of audience data often reflects what researcher Kate Crawford calls "hidden biases in both the collection and analysis stages." When journalists and editors automatically attribute low engagement with political content to audience apathy rather than questioning their own approach, they create a self-fulfilling prophecy. As former politician Lindsay Tanner observed, "As political coverage gets sillier, politicians are forced to get sillier to get coverage. The antics, hyperbole, and spin that have eventuated now alienate many voters." Digital media was once heralded as a solution to these problems, creating new pathways for citizen engagement. However, research suggests that online media largely replicates existing patterns of participation. Matthew Hindman's work demonstrates that while the internet theoretically allows anyone to publish, the link structure of the web creates "winner-take-all" patterns where a small set of highly successful sites dominate each topic. Rather than democratizing access to information, the architecture of the web has shifted exclusivity from production to filtering of political information. The challenge for media organizations isn't just finding new revenue streams but rebuilding relationships with audiences who have been alienated by decades of being treated primarily as products rather than citizens. In an era when readers are increasingly asked to pay directly for news, dismissing them as "disengaged" is no longer an option.

Chapter 7: The New Front Page: Rebuilding Trust Through Audience Engagement

The transformation of the media landscape has made social media the new front page of journalism, particularly for political reporting. This shift represents more than a technological evolution—it requires a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between media organizations and their audience. As news organizations increasingly ask readers to pay directly for content, treating audience members as valued participants rather than passive consumers becomes not just ethically sound but commercially essential. Some forward-thinking media organizations have begun experimenting with new approaches to audience engagement. The Guardian in Britain has opened aspects of its story budgets to the public through its Newsdesk live blog, inviting readers to suggest stories and contribute to coverage decisions. The Atlantic implemented an "Open Wire" initiative, moving their internal editorial discussions into public view. The Journal Register Company went even further under CEO John Paton's leadership, creating the Ben Franklin Project that allowed readers to commission stories directly: "By providing a platform where users can suggest stories, vote for story assignments and/or contribute (information, sources, data, etc.), the Ben Franklin Project will create an open-sourced assignment desk." These innovations recognize that the audience's relationship with news is not purely transactional. When media executive Kim Williams describes his company's approach as "turning our readers and viewers into valued customers and members of our media community," he misses the crucial point that readers see themselves not just as consumers but as citizens wanting a voice in matters important to them. They aren't simply seeking better value for money—they're looking for news organizations to fulfill their democratic role by valuing their views as citizens. The financial challenges facing journalism cannot be solved without addressing this fundamental disconnect. Warren Buffett, whose company has been strategically investing in local newspapers, argues against the industry's tendency toward contraction: "We do not believe that success will come from cutting either the news content or frequency of publication. Indeed, skimpy news coverage will almost certainly lead to skimpy readership." This insight challenges the prevailing wisdom that downsizing is the only response to financial pressure. Perhaps most importantly, rebuilding trust requires transparency and accountability. Media organizations must be willing to acknowledge mistakes publicly rather than attempting to hide them. They need to move beyond defensive reactions to criticism and genuinely engage with their audience's concerns. As Margaret Simons notes about successful initiatives, these organizations "correctly identified that the key asset arising from its history was not its business position but its relationship to its readers." The hard truth is that there is no simple formula for success in this new landscape. The industry needs input from as many sources as possible, including the audience it serves. Journalists must question every assumption about what constitutes news, how it is gathered, and how it is presented, while preserving the core skills and attitudes that enable them to function as a fourth estate. The most successful media organizations will be those that realize their audience is not the problem but rather an essential part of the solution.

Summary

The transition from traditional media to digital platforms represents more than a technological shift—it reveals a profound change in the power dynamics between media institutions and their audiences. Where audiences were once treated primarily as products to be sold to advertisers, they now demand recognition as active participants in democratic discourse. This evolution challenges media organizations to fundamentally reconsider their relationship with the public they serve, moving from gatekeepers who control information to facilitators who empower informed citizenship. The future of journalism depends not just on finding new revenue models, but on rebuilding trust through meaningful audience engagement. The media must navigate a delicate balance—preserving the professional standards and investigative capabilities that make journalism valuable while embracing the transparency and responsiveness that digital audiences expect. Success will come to those organizations that recognize their audiences not merely as consumers but as citizens whose participation enriches rather than threatens journalistic practice. As we move forward in this new media landscape, the most important insight may be that the health of our democracy depends not on choosing between professional journalism and citizen participation, but on creating a more productive synthesis of both.

About Author

Loading...

Tim Dunlop

Read more