When real reporting and analysis are suppressed, we risk abandoning our democracy to fake news and its corrosive effects

By Peter Vandermeersch

Will trusted journalism survive the decade? That question echoed in my mind as I read the harrowing conclusions of a new report by the International News Media Association (INMA), which held its European News Media Conference in Dublin last week. When INMA’s chief executive Earl Wilkinson, one of the world’s most renowned experts in this field, used the words “journalism” and “survive” in the same breath, it wasn’t hyperbole — it was a stark warning.

What is most striking in INMA’s study is not something new, but rather the speed and gravity of the storm enveloping all of us. Print is vanishing. Digital gatekeepers — big tech platforms like Google, TikTok and Meta — decide not just what news we see, but also what gets buried. Non-democratic actors target news organisations. Truth competes with invented narratives, as social media — sometimes inspiring, often poisonous — becomes a relentless engine of disinformation.

For many years, as an editor of national newspapers in Belgium and the Netherlands, then as publisher and chief executive of Mediahuis Ireland, I have told colleagues, students and industry leaders that these risks are real. But to be honest, I thought they were more or less abstract. I believed that journalism was able to reinvent itself, adapt and hold its place in democratic society. I believed that if we want to survive we only had to work harder, be more trustworthy, become better. Perhaps that is because I am the first to admit that newsrooms are not always as good as they claim to be. Journalists’ expertise is often too shallow, or our biases too strong, our stories too black and white, our personal opinions too obvious. We hold everybody else to account, but we are not always accountable enough ourselves. We rarely admit when we are wrong.

Throughout my career, I have worked hard to improve the quality and transparency of our journalism. I have tried to set the bar higher. During this time, I have overseen the platform shift from print to digital. This coincided with what was maybe an even more important cultural change in our newsrooms, as they became more reader-centric than ever before.

I was convinced that by doing all that, I was helping journalism to survive in an era of disinformation.

Today, I’m no longer sure that this is enough. The INMA report confirms that we are entering a perfect storm. Abstract threats have become immediate dangers, shaking not just journalism but democracy itself.

Recent headlines drive the point home. This month, just before the INMA report’s release, Donald Trump filed a $15bn lawsuit against The New York Times, claiming “false and disparaging” reporting. His case was dismissed by a federal judge, but legal experts argue its purpose was simply to harass journalists, suppress criticism and provoke outrage against the media.

In the same week, ABC, owned by Disney, suspended the late-night TV host and comedian Jimmy Kimmel after he condemned the political exploitation of Charlie Kirk’s death and criticised Trump’s reaction to the loss of a close collaborator. The US president praised the suspension of Kimmel’s show as “great news,” while others saw it as a warning sign: media independence can no longer be taken for granted. (ABC since reinstated Kimmel).

It would be naive to think that threats against the press are limited to the US. Recent reports point to serious violations of press freedom in EU countries such as Greece, Hungary and Romania.

Online abuse, including co-ordinated smear campaigns and threats, remains the most common type of attack against media workers throughout Europe, sometimes targeting them both in professional and private contexts.

Northern Ireland remains the most dangerous region for journalists in the UK, with press freedom severely undermined by direct violence, intimidation and ineffective state protection.

Just last week, a survey by the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance found that freedom of the press had worsened in a quarter of the countries assessed, marking the broadest deterioration since the beginning of the dataset half a century ago.

Everywhere, free societies are facing a stark dilemma: when real journalism and critical commentary are suppressed, propaganda and fake news quickly fill the void — and democracy weakens. So, what should be done?

INMA identified three pillars to protect journalism:

1. Recognise journalism as a ­democratic cornerstone
   Journalism is not a luxury: it is a public good. We must reinforce editorial independence and press freedom in law and practice. We need to ramp up media literacy, equipping young and old with the ability to recognise reliable news — and to demand it. Constructive journalism must not only bear witness to the world’s problems, but highlight potential solutions too.
2. Compensate journalistic ­work fairly
   If journalism is to survive, journalistic content should not be stolen or devalued. Today, large language models scrape millions of press articles to train AI systems, typically without consent or remuneration. This copyright abuse inevitably results in lawsuits. Leading publishers are suing tech giants like Microsoft and Google for unauthorised use of their work.
   While some licensing deals are under way, many disputes remain unresolved, and potential new regulation will take years before it’s on the statute books. In the meantime, algorithms siphon readers and revenue away from those who actually do the news-gathering.
3. Enable fair competition in the digital marketplace
   Google, Meta, TikTok and other online platforms hold huge power over discovery and distribution of news content. Their algorithms can make or break a news outlet. These platforms keep a disproportionate share of digital ad revenue, and stifle competitive innovation, sapping resources from quality journalism. Only regulation that is enforced, transparent and global can ensure platforms do not abuse their power, and independent journalism can thrive.

These “pillars” that INMA identifies are designed to create a new societal contract between media and tech, where quality journalism can thrive.

I believe journalism is still one of the most fulfilling professions. I want to preserve quality journalism and even make it better. I love great newspapers, investigative stories, thought-provoking analysis, impressive photography and opinion pieces from people I completely disagree with.

This plea is about much more than journalism: it’s about what sort of society we want to live in. When journalism is weakened, accountability and public trust suffer, and democracy falters. We cannot let that happen.

Today is World News Day. The message is simple and urgent: every day, journalists investigate, analyse, explain and expose wrongdoing. This is the moment to choose truth. Choose facts. Read, listen, watch. Subscribe. Donate. Register. Choose journalism.