At the beginning of the pandemic, way back in early 2020, World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that the world was facing not one but two major crises: the pandemic, yes, but also what he called the “infodemic” — a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.
The symptoms of the infodemic are all too obvious: the rise of conspiracy theories like QAnon, the vast numbers of people who refuse to get vaccinated for Covid-19, and the persistent untruths which fuel so much of today’s politics, no matter how often they are dutifully debunked.
As journalists, we’re on the frontlines of the infodemic. But instead of coming up with solutions, too many of us are part of the problem, dumping vast amounts of information on our audiences, across multiple platforms, and expecting them to have the tools — and the time — to process it all.
This is a function, perhaps, of the infinite nature of the internet: There are no limits on how many stories we can publish, or how long those stories should be. It doesn’t help that the algorithms that define our online existence are set up to reward more pages and more clicks.
But this approach fails to recognize that the nature of journalism has fundamentally changed in the 21st century. In an information-scarce environment, such as the pre-internet age, journalism existed to find and distribute news to an audience, because they couldn’t get that news anywhere else.
Today, everyone with access to the internet lives in an information-rich environment, and the primary role of effective journalism is different. Journalism now functions to condense, contextualize, and curate the sheer volume of information that is out there and accessible to all — to stand between readers and the abyss of the infodemic.
Ironically, the news product that does this best is an old-fashioned print newspaper, where stories are carefully ordered and, because space is at a premium, ruthlessly cut to fit. The hard work is done in the newsroom by people whose job it is to process information; all readers have to do is to keep turning the pages.
The news product that does this worst is a news website, where readers are faced on every page with a dizzying array of stories, each of which might link to a dozen other stories on a dozen other websites. It’s simply too much information to take in at once, and the decision fatigue sets in immediately. Many readers switch off, or they go somewhere else that makes it much easier to access information — even if that information is less reliable.
As journalists, we need to think a lot more carefully about how much information we are putting out into the world and how we present it. Are we countering the infodemic or contributing to it? What we do publish needs to be meaningful, high quality, and respectful of our audience’s time. (For example, if the editing is good enough, most stories can run at half the word count without losing meaning or style — including, no doubt, this one.)
Anything else and the infodemic wins.
Simon Allison is co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Continent, Africa’s most widely distributed newspaper.
At the beginning of the pandemic, way back in early 2020, World Health Organization director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said that the world was facing not one but two major crises: the pandemic, yes, but also what he called the “infodemic” — a deluge of information so overwhelming that it becomes impossible for ordinary people to figure out what is or isn’t credible information.
The symptoms of the infodemic are all too obvious: the rise of conspiracy theories like QAnon, the vast numbers of people who refuse to get vaccinated for Covid-19, and the persistent untruths which fuel so much of today’s politics, no matter how often they are dutifully debunked.
As journalists, we’re on the frontlines of the infodemic. But instead of coming up with solutions, too many of us are part of the problem, dumping vast amounts of information on our audiences, across multiple platforms, and expecting them to have the tools — and the time — to process it all.
This is a function, perhaps, of the infinite nature of the internet: There are no limits on how many stories we can publish, or how long those stories should be. It doesn’t help that the algorithms that define our online existence are set up to reward more pages and more clicks.
But this approach fails to recognize that the nature of journalism has fundamentally changed in the 21st century. In an information-scarce environment, such as the pre-internet age, journalism existed to find and distribute news to an audience, because they couldn’t get that news anywhere else.
Today, everyone with access to the internet lives in an information-rich environment, and the primary role of effective journalism is different. Journalism now functions to condense, contextualize, and curate the sheer volume of information that is out there and accessible to all — to stand between readers and the abyss of the infodemic.
Ironically, the news product that does this best is an old-fashioned print newspaper, where stories are carefully ordered and, because space is at a premium, ruthlessly cut to fit. The hard work is done in the newsroom by people whose job it is to process information; all readers have to do is to keep turning the pages.
The news product that does this worst is a news website, where readers are faced on every page with a dizzying array of stories, each of which might link to a dozen other stories on a dozen other websites. It’s simply too much information to take in at once, and the decision fatigue sets in immediately. Many readers switch off, or they go somewhere else that makes it much easier to access information — even if that information is less reliable.
As journalists, we need to think a lot more carefully about how much information we are putting out into the world and how we present it. Are we countering the infodemic or contributing to it? What we do publish needs to be meaningful, high quality, and respectful of our audience’s time. (For example, if the editing is good enough, most stories can run at half the word count without losing meaning or style — including, no doubt, this one.)
Anything else and the infodemic wins.
Simon Allison is co-founder and editor-in-chief of The Continent, Africa’s most widely distributed newspaper.
Victor Pickard
Juleyka Lantigua
Amy Schmitz Weiss
Kerri Hoffman
Jonas Kaiser
John Davidow
Stefanie Murray
David Cohn
Jesenia De Moya Correa
Whitney Phillips
Richard Tofel
Joy Mayer
Meena Thiruvengadam
Catalina Albeanu
Andrew Freedman
Izabella Kaminska
Christoph Mergerson
Jennifer Coogan
Sarah Stonbely
Jesse Holcomb
Laxmi Parthasarathy
Simon Galperin
Anita Varma
Chase Davis
Larry Ryckman
Anika Anand
Natalia Viana
Chicas Poderosas
Kathleen Searles Rebekah Trumble
Cherian George
Eric Nuzum
Christina Shih
Francesco Zaffarano
Tom Trewinnard
Matt DeRienzo
Mike Rispoli
Moreno Cruz Osório
Shalabh Upadhyay
Stephen Fowler
A.J. Bauer
S. Mitra Kalita
Brian Moritz
Gabe Schneider
Michael W. Wagner
James Green
Alice Antheaume
Mario García
Zizi Papacharissi
Kristen Jeffers
Robert Hernandez
David Skok
Joni Deutsch
Gonzalo del Peon
Rachel Glickhouse
Daniel Eilemberg
Jim Friedlich
Gordon Crovitz
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen
Doris Truong
Janelle Salanga
Amara Aguilar
Kristen Muller
Burt Herman
Simon Allison
Jody Brannon
Shannon McGregor Carolyn Schmitt
Parker Molloy
Cristina Tardáguila
Ståle Grut
AX Mina
Jennifer Brandel
Megan McCarthy
Errin Haines
Millie Tran
Julia Munslow
Melody Kramer
Cindy Royal
Don Day
Kendra Pierre-Louis
Sarah Marshall
Wilson Liévano
Mary Walter-Brown
Mandy Jenkins
Tamar Charney
Raney Aronson-Rath
Jessica Clark
Anthony Nadler
Matt Karolian
Candace Amos
Paul Cheung
Sam Guzik
Tony Baranowski
Julia Angwin
Joe Amditis
j. Siguru Wahutu
Joshua P. Darr
Ariel Zirulnick
Matthew Pressman
Nikki Usher
Joanne McNeil