Who Wins When Journalism Loses?
Without reliable information, there can be no critical citizenry—and without a critical citizenry, democracy loses its meaning.
Some claim that journalism is already dead. Others argue it is simply in crisis. Of the dead, it is said they are “laid to rest.” But if we assume journalism is merely in crisis, the more pressing question is: what kind of future are we building for it?
Spanish journalist Teodoro León Gross stirred the debate with his book The Death of Journalism. He is not the first to proclaim symbolic endings: Friedrich Nietzsche spoke of the death of God; Roland Barthes, of the death of the author; Francis Fukuyama, of the end of history. What is at stake now, however, is something far more immediate: a key pillar of democracy.
León Gross argues that journalism has shifted from being a “fourth estate” to a secondary actor. It once held power to account; now, it often accompanies it. It once helped make sense of reality; today, it competes for attention in an oversaturated environment. This process, which he describes as a “mediamorphosis,” is not merely technological—it is a profound transformation that reshapes journalism’s social role.
For decades, journalism rested on a delicate balance: it was a public service that functioned successfully as a business without losing its democratic purpose. That model has weakened. Advertising—the financial backbone that sustained editorial independence—has migrated to digital platforms, leaving many media outlets in precarious conditions. With fewer resources, investigative work becomes harder, and independence suffers.
This is compounded by the logic of the attention economy. Today, the goal is not necessarily to inform better, but to capture more clicks. Information has increasingly become entertainment. Content now appeals to intense emotions—fear, anger, outrage—because they drive engagement. The problem is that provoking emotion is not the same as providing understanding.
At the same time, the press has lost authority. There was a time when media outlets shaped public opinion; today, that influence is far more limited. Trust has eroded, and many people consume information without distinguishing between reliable sources and questionable content.
Yet the deepest shift concerns truth itself. We live in the age of post-truth, where facts matter less than beliefs. Fake news—fabricated stories designed to manipulate—circulates easily, particularly on social media. In this landscape, journalism is no longer the sole filter; it competes with rumors, opinions, and misinformation.
Algorithms intensify the problem. They are designed to show what captures attention, not what informs best. As a result, the most extreme or controversial content tends to go viral. When everything seems debatable and there is no shared ground on basic facts, democracy begins to erode.
This global scenario has concrete consequences in countries such as the Dominican Republic. In contexts where many challenges remain unresolved, access to reliable information is essential. ECLAC (CEPAL) warns that inequality undermines trust in institutions and weakens social cohesion.
When strong local media are absent, so-called “news deserts” emerge—places where no one explains what authorities are doing or how public resources are being used. In such spaces, misinformation spreads, and citizen participation declines.
For this reason, organizations such as UNESCO insist that free, plural, and safe journalism is essential to democracy. It is not only about reporting the news, but about ensuring that people can understand and take part in decisions that affect their lives.
As is evident, this is not an issue for journalists alone. It concerns society as a whole. It touches on how people access information, how they form opinions, and how they engage in public life. To be a citizen today means knowing how to question what one sees on social media and digital platforms, to verify sources, and not be guided solely by emotion.
In light of all this, the opening question should challenge us. Perhaps journalism has not died. Perhaps what is at stake is whether we, as a society, are willing to recognize its value, defend it, and demand quality from it.
Because without reliable information, there is no critical citizenry. And without a critical citizenry, democracy loses its meaning.
So the key question remains: who wins when journalism loses? And another follows: what are we going to do about it?
Source: Acento
Author: Néstor Estévez
Picture: FreePik