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.
David Skok
Janelle Salanga
Kristen Muller
Christoph Mergerson
Kendra Pierre-Louis
Jesse Holcomb
Tony Baranowski
Gabe Schneider
Kristen Jeffers
A.J. Bauer
Joe Amditis
Mike Rispoli
j. Siguru Wahutu
Joni Deutsch
Brian Moritz
Errin Haines
Jesenia De Moya Correa
Don Day
Larry Ryckman
Megan McCarthy
Cherian George
Gonzalo del Peon
Kathleen Searles Rebekah Trumble
Francesco Zaffarano
Chase Davis
Victor Pickard
Simon Allison
Burt Herman
Kerri Hoffman
Jennifer Coogan
Ariel Zirulnick
Anika Anand
Juleyka Lantigua
Jody Brannon
Izabella Kaminska
Joshua P. Darr
Jonas Kaiser
Whitney Phillips
Anthony Nadler
Amy Schmitz Weiss
Rachel Glickhouse
Gordon Crovitz
Joy Mayer
Tom Trewinnard
Shalabh Upadhyay
Parker Molloy
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen
Chicas Poderosas
Paul Cheung
Eric Nuzum
Millie Tran
Cristina Tardáguila
Zizi Papacharissi
Matthew Pressman
Sarah Marshall
John Davidow
Mario García
Amara Aguilar
Wilson Liévano
Candace Amos
Meena Thiruvengadam
Mandy Jenkins
Matt Karolian
Laxmi Parthasarathy
Moreno Cruz Osório
David Cohn
Ståle Grut
Shannon McGregor Carolyn Schmitt
Catalina Albeanu
Alice Antheaume
Daniel Eilemberg
Michael W. Wagner
S. Mitra Kalita
Joanne McNeil
Cindy Royal
Natalia Viana
Matt DeRienzo
Anita Varma
James Green
Jennifer Brandel
Robert Hernandez
Christina Shih
Stephen Fowler
Melody Kramer
Stefanie Murray
Sam Guzik
Tamar Charney
Sarah Stonbely
Raney Aronson-Rath
Simon Galperin
Andrew Freedman
Richard Tofel
Nikki Usher
Julia Munslow
Jim Friedlich
Mary Walter-Brown
Julia Angwin
AX Mina
Jessica Clark
Doris Truong