Just The Facts - The Formula For Journalism's Future?

Zuckerberg's Monster is a messy, multi-colored blob of mushed together left-over pieces of Play Doh that a five year old has fashioned into a mini version of his father who he expects to display the masterpiece in his office. That's Facebook.

Facebook is an amalgamation of Instagram, WhatsApp, Giphy and many others. And now they've added another.

It's been announced that Facebook will be venturing into the journalism territory, more specifically coming out with their own version of Substack. How novel.

But before we wade into all of that, what is Substack? Well, it's a nice little service that I've entertained joining. It's essentially an online platform that allows writers -- be you professional or aspiring -- to be able to create newsletters and send to your audience. I'm simplifying it. Substack also helps you with a subscription system, charge or have a metered paywall, and, in some cases, even provide legal defense if you're ever sued. Casey Newton formerly of The Verge and Andrew Sullivan formerly of New York Magazine, are just a couple of the notable names that have left to do their own thing--on Substack.

Personally, I think it's a nice little tool for those who are interested in taking their writing and developing it before an audience. You might be able to make a little money, too. Well, not too much unless you have a ton of followers or a handful of followers paying huge prices for a subscription. Look for those rich relatives, friends.

Regardless, Substack is just the tip of the iceberg of what I'd like to get into here. The Facebook/Substack situation got me to thinking: What is the future of journalism?

I should refine that. What I really mean is how is this going to change what or how we think of journalism.

Full disclosure, I did not go to j-school and I don't fancy myself a journalist. I do, however, have an affinity for writers. In some ways, I try to pass myself off as one.

Currently there is artificial intelligence that is replacing journalists. It's happened or happening in places like Microsoft and Google. Heck, I can't even finish a sentence when I'm writing in Gmail without the interface autocompleting the heck out of it.

As I had mentioned above, I am not a journalist and never went to j-school. But from what I have been exposed to is that there is certain, 'Just the facts, ma'am' approach to the writing. They're historians and that is how they were trained.

Growing up I read sports writers who would recap the previous evening's games. Every now and then they would slip something rather creative or humorous in. It was like a little trademark. Otherwise, 95% of the piece was just straight facts. This person scored this many points, grabbed this many rebounds, and hit the game winner. The team was behind and then drove 70 yards downfield to kick the winning field goal by a kicker who had missed the previous three attempts. It was pretty bland now that I think about it. My expectation wasn't necessarily to be entertained as much as be informed. As a result a lot read like a textbook and, friends, I was certainly ok with that.

Know what ? There's a need for it. You want to know what opened, when, where, and how. Get a quote. Perhaps even interview a handful of people. Move on. Just the facts. A writer's worth was getting the facts right. Then it turned to who could break news, which was a race of its own.

But eventually, we get older. We get exposed to others. Writers have to separate themselves, especially as they moved on to other mediums such as, at the time, television. They became personalities.

Well, the outdated approach of "Just the facts" is just vulnerable to AI disruption and replacement. Don't think an algorithm can't scour the internet for press releases and related announcements and cobble together 500 words on a store opening or a new hire? It sure as heck can.

So like all things, there is likely to be a pivot. Or perhaps a skill shift.

One thing that I can see from where I sit is that AI can give you the facts but it sure as hell can't tell a story. It doesn't have the ability to add flourishes, humor, signature, or style. At least not yet. So how does one differentiate? Well, writers will have to.

For the last two decades journalism has been pummeled from all sides. The internet led to the death of print. It meant faster turnaround times on stories. Nobody wants to wait for a second edition when someone can write, upload, and publish in almost no time. And of course there's the cost. Then we had the rise of the bloggers, many of whom were probably like me fancying themselves as journos in sheep's clothing, seen as hobbyists thinking they were more than they really were, which are fans who could mash together an entertaining sentence about a topic they were passionate about. But some bloggers were breaking stories, gaining a modicum of cred, and, most importantly, gaining popularity and a following. These folks weren't normally (at least back then) held to the same standard as writers were. But yet they made a dent.

And now we're here.

What about Facebook and Substack?

Perhaps these are tools that will allow writers to go on their own and create and flourish. Or maybe it's a stay of execution before AI and Skynet come plowing through the industry. Personally, I feel that there will still be great writers out there. But it will be in newer mediums. The ones who survive will be able to evolve and find their ways onto other platforms like a Substack where they can enjoy a bit of freedom away from the mindset of a strict adherence to the recipe. Let's face it, when it's just the facts, any algorithm can solve that algebraic equation. The formula just might be out there.

Sharing is caring! I welcome the sharing of any comments on this piece, regardless of whether they are in agreement or disagreement with what is written. Additionally, the sharing of this article with your followers is welcome.

This is meant to be a thought provoker and a conversation starter.