Lars Tallert is president of the global network, Sustainable Journalism Partnership. He is also the head of Policy and International Development, Fojo Media Institute at Linnaeus University. He is Sweden’s representative to the UNESCO IPDC Intergovernmental Council. During more than thirty years, he has been a reporter, an advisor to governments, media companies, the UN, OECD/DAC and NGOs on issues related to development, communication and journalism. He speaks to Prothom Alo on the concept of sustainable journalism, the future of journalism, the challenges ahead and more.
You are exploring sustainable journalism. Can you explain to us what sustainable journalist is all about?
I think that the starting point is that ‘business as usual’ is not an option. We see the world is changing. There is incredible technological development that is taking over everything in our lives. We see climate change starting to change everything, not least for people in Bangladesh. Those are two major changes that will profoundly change our society.
The third change we see is news avoidance, particularly among young people. We see that globally people under 25, do not read news. They are on TikTok, Instagram and so on. They are not interested in the way we present the news and in the topics we choose. The topics that a journalist is most interested in, like political crisis, elections and so on, are exactly the topics that make young people avoid the news. So we have to rethink journalism.
Sustainable journalism is not only about defending human rights or defending freedom of expression. It is also making journalism contribute to a sustainable society. We must be better on reporting on issues that our vital to a sustainable society. We must also be better at finding new business models, how we can generate income. Without economic independence, there can be no editorial independence.
We are all having difficulties, not only in Bangladesh, but all over the world. So the challenges are: How can media itself be more sustainable? How can we find better business models in the digital landscape so we can generate income? And how can journalism better contribute not only to democracy, but also to a sustainable society? This is the basis of the concept of sustainable journalism.
How can media attract the youth, young audiences and catch their interest in issues related to sustainability?
We have founded a global network that is called Sustainable Journalism Partnership to find the answer to that question. The interest has been incredible. We already have more than 250 members from 63 different countries. We have major organisations like WAN-IFRA as a member, Free Press Unlimited and Internews. Several of the big media are also members and many universities — Linnaeus University in Sweden, Aga Khan University in Kenya and Wits University in South Africa. This is a community and the idea of the community is to find the answer to your question. We don’t have the answer, but we need to find the answer together.
We do research constantly. We have two important conclusions. One is when we talk about young audiences, we need to rethink the format. Legacy media, that is, traditional or mainstream media, are no longer gatekeepers. Many people believe we are gatekeepers, but that is no longer the case. We lost that position 30 years ago. Quality news is just a part of the information flow on social media. We are competing with all the junk news and all the disinformation that is there.
I think of these flows of information like water. We have polluted water, stinking polluted water and that is disinformation. And there is a lot of disinformation. We have dirty water which is the biggest stream. That is all the junk news that is being published — news of no value, sensational entertainment. Then we have a small stream of clean, pure water. That is quality journalism. And we need to increase the amount of pure, clean water. That is our mission.
So how do we reach young people? First, we need to understand our audience. We need to listen more, we need to do audience surveys, we need to use the data that is available. As soon as you go digital, you can get a lot of data and you need to know how to use that. That is something we need to do together as an industry.
The second most important conclusion is that there is not one size fits all. We have to understand that young urban middle class youth, 20 to 25, require very different news compared to older, poorly educated women in the countryside. The old notion of the newspaper is one size fits all. The editor decides what is important and you publish. That is what I call business as usual and it is not the way to go.
What about business models, do you have any research on this?
Yes, everyone is researching that. And here too, it is also about one size not fitting all. Bangladesh’s reality is very different from the Swedish reality. So there is no golden arrow. It is all about knowing your audience, knowing how to use the information and, of course, having a strategy on how to earn money on digital.
That is a tough question. We need to have two tracks. One track is as long as we make money on print, we should continue to make money on print. But you need to have the long-term strategy. How can you make money on digital? That is true for all countries and especially of course for South Asia where you have such a long and strong tradition of print media. So you need to have two tracks — one that is long term and one that is surviving 2023 which will be a very tough year for all of us.
Why will 2023 be a very tough year for the media?
It will be tough for everyone. Prices are going up on gas, on electricity, on commodities, people are demonstrating, people will have less money, there will be inflation. This is true for the entire world, also Sweden. And it is to a large extent due to the consequences of Putin’s war in Ukraine.
One stark difference with the West and countries like ours, is that here there are certain laws, often referred to as draconian laws, that muffle the media. How do you see this and how do you think these can be faced?
Yes, we have a lot of freedom of expression in Sweden and the Swedish Media Ombudsman always says free press is the best way to tackle corruption. I also think that professional quality journalism is basic in a democratic society. The ideal situation is, of course, that you have liberal media laws and a media that can self-regulate, that takes responsibility.
To tackle draconian media laws is very difficult. The best way is to do good journalism. That is the simple answer. The better journalism we do, the more professional we are, the more we get the facts right, the more we tell good stories, the stronger we are.
You have visited Bangladesh a couple of times. What are your observations about the media of Bangladesh?
I certainly admire many of the independent journalists that do good stories and they are very brave. Just like in any country, we must be very creative at this moment. We really need to change our mindsets. That is difficult. It is difficult for Bangladeshi journalists, it is difficult for Swedish journalists.
I think many journalists, not only in Bangladesh, are stuck in the mode of old journalism, when we used to be gatekeepers. We can’t think like that anymore because we are not dominating the information landscape. We are just part of a big information flow where quality journalism is the smallest stream. We have to adapt to that reality. We have to rethink. That is a challenge everywhere.
Misinformation, disinformation, fake news is one of the biggest challenges that we have. What is the best way of tackling this problem of fake news?
It is important to debunk this information, especially when things go viral. The most important thing is understanding that disinformation is mainly about making people confused. The typical disinformation strategy is like this: You pump one opinion into the system. And then you pump an opposing opinion into the system — and both contain some pieces of truth but are generally fake. Then you get a fake discussion. And in the end people say: I can’t trust anyone. The result is that people lose faith in the democratic system.
So if we get too caught up in disinformation logic, we get fooled. Instead, we must continue to make quality journalism so when people are confused and they look for information, they come to Prothom Alo, they come to quality news media, to the media they can trust.
What would say about the role of women in journalism? More and more women are joining the profession in Bangladesh, but very few women at the policy level, at the decision making level. How do you see this?
When we talk about sustainability and sustainable journalism, there can be no sustainable journalism without gender equality. It is not only a question of it being the right thing to do. If 50 per cent of the population are women, then we need to understand the women audience. It is also a commercial possibility. You have a lot of middle class women who are interested not only in cooking here in Dhaka, and that is an interesting commercial group to approach.
When it comes to women in journalism, in Sweden it is the opposite. There is a higher percentage of women than men in journalism there. But the best is to have a balance.
That is one aspect. The other aspect is, if we look at research, not only in the media industry, but in any industry, we see that gender-balanced, inclusive organisations deliver better than male dominated, non-inclusive organisations. So it is not only a question of justice. It also a question of business and efficiency.
It is the same thing with youth. 60 per cent of the population in Bangladesh is below 25. If we look at the age of journalists, how are they represented? So you must have representation in the newsroom in accordance with your target audiences.
Without sustainable journalism, can sustainable democracy survive?
No. But on the other hand, we need to see what we can influence and what we cannot influence. For instance, any news organisation can employ more women and more youth. That we can do. The management can take that decision tomorrow to get a better representation in the newsroom. But to influence democracy is a bit beyond. We do this all the time, but it is not something we do just over one day. But it is something we do all the time as journalists.
Do you think journalists can be activists for democracy?
I think it is important to differentiate between activists and journalists. We are journalists and as journalists we are promoting democracy and without independent journalism, there can be no democracy. So it is more like we are a part of democracy. Without independent quality journalism it is very difficult to imagine a functional democracy.
There is no perfect democracy. Not even in Sweden is a perfect democracy. Let us just do good journalism and keep on struggling. There is no other way. Get to know our audience, adapt to our audience — knowing what they want and what they need. Based on this information, we then deliver public interest journalism according to the highest professional standards.
If we talk about sustainable journalism, another very important thing is to also look at solutions. It is not necessary that we propose solutions, but it is asking that extra question when you are interviewing someone. If you want to hold power to account, you ask for solutions. The traditional journalist says — you did this wrong, you did that wrong, but we must also ask — what it the solution you propose? That makes it more difficult for people in power to escape their responsibility.
The same goes for climate change. People ask, how do we adapt to climate change? What crops should we grow when climate is changing? How should we adapt our lives? In traditional journalism we have a tendency to just serve problems. The younger generation has enough problems. I am not saying we should avoid problems, but we must also present possibilities and solutions and not least hold power to account. Because they make a lot of promises and we should ensure that they keep their promises.
Interview people who propose solutions. We have a young generation of tech savvy people who can propose the most fantastic solutions, but typically we don’t interview them. We interview the old politicians and they have their ordinary blah blah blah answer. Why don’t we interview young people who propose exciting solutions? The young audience want to find answers. If we only serve additional problems, they will continue to avoid news.
We had a very good discussion and I was really impressed. These were first year students and I must say I had a more interesting discussion with them than I have with the Swedish journalism students at my university, the Linnaeus University. These are the people we should listen to. They understand the reality. They understand tech work. Of course, their world is different. They are upper middle class, urban youth, very smart. Of course, life in the villages is very different.
Then again, we say poor women in the countryside are illiterate so we must teach them. But I do not believe that is the case. They are often much smarter than we think but we can’t reach them because we use the wrong kind of journalism. We must listen to them. What kind of news are they interested in? They are not interested in the “political football match” between the government and the opposition. They are interested in totally different subjects. If we want their confidence and trust, we must listen to their interests. Don’t underestimate them!
Bangladesh didn’t contribute to climate change but is bearing the brunt. How can journalism contribute to this, help the affected people?
Climate journalism is incredibly difficult. Climate change is uncertain, it is in the future and it is not event based. It is a nightmare for journalists who deal with events here and now. What is worse, much of the “doom and gloom” journalism that we produce make people feel powerless. And then we have totally failed, as the purpose of journalism is to empower people. The awareness that climate change is happening due to mankind is quite high. But the response is very low.
What can I do as an individual? As journalists, what we really should do is to inform people on what they can do in their reality. We typically tell the story of the scientists, we tell the story of 1.5, but what does that mean? What is 1.5 degrees? If I say 2.5, I don’t understand the difference. It is bad journalism. Good journalism is about doing stories about people, on topics of concern to them. We need to understand how people are affected by climate change. What do they need from us? They want solutions in their daily lives.
Not COP27, not the 40,000 people going to Sharm-el-Sheikh and achieving very little. They want to know how climate change will affect their crop, their next harvest? How will it affect fishing? How will affect the smog in Dhaka? How will it affect my children? Should I move from the Sundarbans or any coastal areas? These are the kind of questions that people ask.
We tend to report on everything like it’s a football game. Football is fantastic when we talk about the World Championship, about Argentina and Brazil. But life is not a football game. It is about how we can change our reality. We all know Bangladesh will be one of the countries hardest hit by climate change and we already see the consequences. And it is just the beginning.
So as media, we need to have a special strategy on how to combat climate change. And we need to look at the possibilities. Just to give you one example: Today three per cent of the Bangladeshi energy sector is renewable energy. We know that renewable energy will increase rapidly in the near future. Can you imagine the possibilities? So while we need to keep on exposing the problems in society, we also need to make space for the people that see the possibilities. That is the way to go, if we want to be prosperous and contribute to a democratic and sustainable society.
