@ Arvydas.

That´s an interestinq question, of course.

As the so called citizen journalism as emerged as a new reality, there is no doubt to me that quality journalism -and analytical journalism- will be a key concept in the years to come.

And I would add that information and communication technology (ICT) provides journalists with new tools. And they could be very useful in order to develop a new concept of quality journalism. So journalists just have to learn to use them in a proper way.

The decline in quality journalism is largely a myth.  There is still a great tradition of high quality journalism both in terms of analysis and investigation.  We are confused by an illusion that because garbage journalism is on the increase that the converse, quality journalism is dying out is a fact.  There is huge demand for trashy sensationalist journalism but there always has been.  It is easier to produce this today because of internet technology but the good stuff is still there.  

Quality journalism will always have an audience and just because many people like reading and watching trash does not mean that quality journalism will disappear.  After all, just because many people like watching trashy, poorly written and acted soaps does not mean that the audience for quality drama will die out. 

I would agree with Barry Turner. I'm not sure I would agree with the premise that 'quality' in the mass media is in decline. Quality is subjective and dynamic. One day I may want quality entertainment as much as quality news!

Perhaps we could say that there are issues of  consistency both in terms of the range of useful journalistic content and also the frequency of examples of quality journalism - The NSA/Snowden story is a great example. Brilliant journalism. Quality in all senses - the way it was conducted and it's social and political utility. But we could argue that it's the exception that proves the rule of quality journalism.  

I think that, more fundamentally, we need to consider whether the 'mass media' is/was or needs to be exclusively the place for 'quality' content. As you say, there are examples of great quality content outside of the mass media.

Perhaps we need to think about a dispersed media. In that context, quality is about access to a diverse range of sources.  It's not about who is doing it but how people find and interact with quality content when they need it. 

There is as much responsible journalism as there is "citizen jouralism". A debate has risen whether this last one is should be called journalism.  Some argue that, anyone who reports on a current events issue or a community interest story is a journalist, wether she has training or not. Under that light, anyone of us with a camera cell phone is a potential journalist. Others say that journalism requires academia and responsibility. They argue that citizen journalism lacks responsibility because it doesn't dig or follow thru in a story. It lacks investigation, preparation and depth.

It may seem that there is less analytical journalism just because there are more media outlets than 10 or 20 years ago. Also the magazinization of TV has led us to believe that there are less in-depth stories being told. The repetition of media content and programming formats and the increase in "reallity television" that makes people rich although they have no talent (they don't sing, dance, model, etc.) but who appear on TV. (Honey boo boo, Kardashians, Jersey shore...)

So one must know where to look and be selective. But there are still many media vehicles and professionals committed to their craft and who uphold the traditional sense of ethics.

Arvydas, 

I am going to have to disagree with some of the previous respondents on a few points. On the one hand, there is more information available than ever before, which is good. But on the other hand, every person now has to act as an editor/gate-keeper and has to sift through and filter all the news that they receive to determine what is valuable and what is not. If we look to the mainstream, network news, I think the story is much clearer. The quality has diminished tremendously. 

Barry and Beatriz suggest that the "lack of quality" is just perceptual, something of an illusion, because we are surrounded by so much dreck. But historically, the more educated elites in society watched very little of the pap that was on television, and consumed news and information to a greater extent. This is still true. I, for example, do not watch ANY of the trash news programs alluded to -- although I am subjected to advertisements for them -- they are not the reason that quality journalism is harder to find. Two examples of the problem come to mind. (1) The 24 hour news networks that struggle to produce continuous, simplistic, content. And (2), one of the best examples in the US is public broadcasting, long considered the best news by the educated elites and intellectuals. In the past, public broadcasting used to bring in two or more experts on a topic. Often BOTH experts were for an issue or against an issue, but they were brought in because of their expertise, not some false sense of balance. Now, what we see in almost every case is that the two people are brought in to discuss an issue, say climate change, and each "expert" represents the poles (one for and one against). This is done in the name of "balance." Unfortunately, 99% of all scientists believe that climate change is largely caused by human activities. The faux "balance" passed off by the news media is in no way "balance," but poor journalism. Journalists who either have not taken the time to research and find out the details of an issue, or who simply do not really care. 

I work in a journalism school and I could go on about this all day. There are many reasons for this. Journalists are increasingly called upon to do more than ever before. Print journalists have been handed cameras and told to take their own pictures so photographers could be fired (anyone can take pictures right?), broadcast journalists are being forced to produce blog content (essentially editorial and opinion) and other extra-content that they were previously not responsible for, etc.

To say that the quality has not diminished is, I believe, false. The quality and sophistication of news at all levels has declined. 

I work in two journalism schools both of which are accredited by the main journalism professional bodies in the UK.  I have no worries that quality journalism will always be available and I am always amazed that the students, in spite of being bombarded with junk TV, trashy newspapers and moronic celebrity culture still look to the real stories and what we call quality journalism as an inspiration.  

I agree that faux 'balance' has poisoned the news presentation which is why I tell my students that bias is good.  I am lucky to live in a society where the newspapers at least are still very biased and although reading some of the populist and often puerile views in some of them infuriates me it is far better than the 'sit on the fence' style of broadcast television news.   There is plenty of good journalism being produced and always will be.  Quality journalism is like everything of quality, it tends to be rarer than the junk churnalism but the increase in the junk has not diminished the good stuff.

If people want to read about preposterous manufactured celebrities then it is not the fault of journalism, it is perhaps the type of society where this is prevalent that is the problem.  In all respects the very best editor, the most efficient censor is always the consumer.  I 'edit' the tabloids by not reading them, I 'censor' trashy television with a brilliant invention called a remote control.

Finally on the subject of balance, I often wonder how these 'balance' fanatics would have reported WW2, presumably they would have had to put in the occasional good word for Hitler.  

Well said Barry. The BBC model, however, is very different than most. Correct me if I ask wrong, but you have a TV tax in the UK that funds an assortment of journalism activities. That DOES make a difference. I would also add, however, that accreditation does not make a program good. My college is accredited by THREE of the major accreditation bodies, but that does not make the professors do any better research or more pedagogically creative. I originally come from a communication background where departmental or college accreditation does not matter. The best programs are not the best because they are accredited.