Affairs

Challenges of Content Creator Journalism

The former head of BBC News warned of the rise of so-called 'content creator journalism', saying that news organizations no longer compete with similar institutions, but rather compete with individuals who have succeeded in building a direct relationship with the audience through digital platforms, to the extent that their names are more prominent than the names of the institutions they work for or have left.

Perhaps the experience of American broadcaster Tucker Carlson is a clear example of this shift; after leaving one of the largest news networks, his audience moved with him to his own platforms, achieving millions of views without the need for a television screen. The same applies to Italian Fabrizio Romano in sports journalism, who has become for millions of followers the primary reference for player transfer news, to the point that his name is the brand the audience searches for, regardless of the platform or institution through which he publishes.

So, the real challenge for media institutions is no longer to be the fastest in breaking news, nor to have the largest platform, but to redefine their relationship with their journalists in the digital age; it has become common for a journalist to belong to a media institution, while his personal accounts exclusively break news that precedes what the institution he works for publishes, a reality that forces institutions to reconsider their contractual and editorial models.

Then the challenge moves to a more complex stage, which is the ability of media institutions to produce content that competes with what individuals offer, without abandoning their core advantage: institutional work based on accumulated professional experience. What is required today is not to imitate content creators, but to employ their flexibility and speed within a professional framework that makes content more credible, in-depth, and impactful.

To achieve that, media institutions must decide their priorities: are they institutions preoccupied with administrative procedures, attendance, and operational efforts, or institutions focused on newsmaking? The real value of any journalistic institution lies not in the number of its managers or administrative staff, but in the quality of its journalists. Therefore, retaining journalistic talent and attracting talent must be a strategic priority, because an institution that loses its best journalists loses its competitive advantage. If circumstances impose austerity measures, it makes sense to start by reviewing spending and support administrative structures, not to make competent journalists the first victims; that would be like a hospital that lets go of its doctors, or a school that lets go of its teachers, and then expects to maintain the quality of its output.

All of this does not negate the fact that media institutions are engaged in an unequal confrontation; they operate within strict legal and professional frameworks and bear editorial and ethical responsibilities, while competing with individuals, many of whom are not subject to the same institutional controls, and sometimes benefit from weak intellectual property protection and the ease of republishing content without significant consequences. This does not mean calling for restrictions on individuals, but rather providing a more competitive environment that preserves rights and encourages investment in professional journalism.