Ten years after asking Portuguese journalists what the biggest constraints to press freedom were, Felisbela Lopes, Full Professor at the Department of Communication Sciences at the University of Minho, returned to the topic and found a more difficult scenario. “Comparatively, today concerns are more numerous and more intense,” concludes the researcher based on a new survey of 100 journalists from national outlets. At the top of the concerns, three main axes emerge: the financial crisis of media groups, job insecurity and the identity crisis of journalism.
The new portrait shows worsening in relation to the past. “Ten years ago they told me one or two constraints; now they say several, in a rush”, says Felisbela Lopes. The difference, he emphasizes, is not only in the repetition of already known problems, but in their intensification and the emergence of a new dimension. “These constraints are becoming more serious. People talk about them with greater gravity. And there is a third that is new, which has to do with the identity crisis of journalism and journalists.”
The study is based on 100 testimonies collected from professionals from different national media – television, radio, newspapers, Lusa agency and digital projects -, distributed in different roles in newsrooms, from directors and editors to major reporters and journalists with no other positions. The panel includes 49 women and 51 men. There is also an element that reinforces the comparison with 2015: 45 of this year’s 100 respondents had already participated in the previous survey. But the most significant fact about the transformation of the sector is perhaps something else: among the participants in the 2015 panel, 30 are no longer in the profession. The researcher makes a point of specifying the nature of this exit: “Not because the majority had retired. Rather because the majority decided to do something else.” Given that it thus functions as “an additional indicator of the erosion of the sector”.
By counting the references mentioned by respondents, adding the first two constraints mentioned in each answer, a clear hierarchy results. The financial crisis collects 48 references, the precariousness of work 33 and the identity crisis 27. Next are technological constraints, designated in the study as “techno-AI”, with 14 references, disinformation, with 13, pressure from sources, with 12, social networks, with 11, and time pressure, with 9. Further down come political influences, with 7 references, pressure from audiences, with 5, self-censorship, with 4, legal proceedings, with 3, physical coercion, with 1, and the lack of literacy, also with 1.
The financial crisis of media groups is, unequivocally, the most highlighted problem. According to Felisbela Lopes, when journalists talk about this constraint they are referring to a structural weakness that conditions the ability to produce quality journalism. “They recognize that newsrooms don’t have enough people, the capacity to hire, or the money to cover, for example, abroad. That they don’t have the time necessary for deeper work, and that the pressure to do it faster is constant”, explains. In summary, he adds, “they recognize that there are no financial means that allow them to do the journalism they want”.
The research results reinforce this reading. The economic crisis for journalistic companies “translates into fewer resources, fewer journalists in newsrooms and less scope for reporting, investigation and in-depth work.” Several respondents also warn of an effect that goes beyond newsrooms and directly affects democratic life: less journalism means less oversight of power; less investigation corresponds to less transparency; Less pluralism translates into less diversity of opinions in public space.
The precariousness of work appears immediately afterwards, with 33 references, and appears linked to both the degradation of working conditions and editorial vulnerability. Journalists describe a profession marked by “low wages, unstable contracts, work with green receipts and a lack of professional stability”. For Felisbela Lopes, this is the individual plan for a broader crisis. I.e, “if the financial crisis corresponds to a macro level, related to media groups and the sustainability of companies, precariousness represents the micro level, that of the concrete experience of each professional”.
But, the researcher insists, “the three aspects are very linked, very intrinsically linked”, she says, referring to the financial crisis, precariousness and the identity crisis. The economic fragility of the groups is reflected in their working conditions, and both end up affecting the quality of journalistic work and the way the profession is perceived inside and out. “All of this makes my work also lose quality”, he summarizes.
It is precisely at this point that the third major problem identified by the study emerges: the identity crisis of journalism and journalists. With 27 references, this dimension marks a relevant difference compared to 2015. “Journalists feel that their credibility is not recognized and that people are increasingly distrustful of journalism. This is new compared to what I found ten years ago”, says Felisbela Lopes.
According to the survey, professionals feel that journalism is losing its essential role of mediation between facts and citizens, at the same time that it is increasingly confused with commentary, influence or simple content production. “Currently, the role of the journalist is confused with influencerwith content for social networks”observes the professor. And reinforces the need to demarcate borders: “You need to have very clear boundaries, because influencers don’t do journalism. Someone who has a social network doesn’t do journalism.”
For the researcher, this identity crisis also reflects the loss of power and authority of the profession in the confrontation with decision-making centers. “Journalism was the fourth power, now we are exactly at the opposite pole”, he says. Today, he says, journalists work with more fragility, more fear and less room for maneuver. “We are now even under some fear and some fear.”
This fragility is not just external; In some cases, journalists themselves recognize accommodation or withdrawal. The study records four references to self-censorship, and Felisbela Lopes admits that there is a minority that makes this recognition: “Some also say that they themselves bend to these constraints, that they could do more.” Although not the dominant tendency, this self-criticism reveals how structural pressure is also internalized in the daily exercise of the profession.
“Journalism as a public good requires a more robust public response”
For Felisbela Lopes, this situation cannot be addressed with diagnosis alone. The researcher argues that the results make “greater speed in the implementation and expansion of axes 3 and 4 of the Media Action Plan” launched in 2024 by the previous Government of Luís Montenegro. These axes provide mechanisms to support the economic sustainability of the sector, the enhancement of journalists’ working conditions and the adaptation of media organizations to technological and digital challenges.
“We have to think seriously about financing journalistic media”, says Felisbela Lope. And he adds: “The Action Plan for Social Communication must gain more strength in supporting the economic sustainability of the sector.” He recognizes that the document already provides for “support for economic sustainability, the enhancement of working conditions and adaptation to technological challenges”, but insists that “measures must be taken”.
In your opinion, The issue of financing is central because the current economic model has proven insufficient to sustain journalism. “The business model doesn’t work. We’ve already realized that,” he says. Hence the defense of more robust public intervention. “This public financing is necessary. Greater action from public authorities is necessary”, he maintains.
The position is based on a basic idea that Felisbela Lopes considers decisive: “When we talk about journalism, we talk about journalism as a public good.” And develops: “Journalism is not just any product or any content; it has a very clear social function.” Recent experience, particularly in a pandemic and crisis context, has made this particularly visible. “If we understand the function of journalism, then we must not let it weaken, and therefore, it needs public funding.”
New forms of representation?
But the answer, he insists, cannot be limited to the economic level. The identity crisis also requires a reflection on the organization and dignity of the profession. “It is urgent to dignify the field of journalism, the profession, journalists”, he says. In this context, he admits that it is time to discuss new forms of representation and regulation: “This could be the time to think, for example, of an Order for journalists.” Without closing the door to other solutions, the essential thing, he says, is to find “formulas that dignify the profession, be it an Order or another solution, from the outset the intensification of what exists”.
More than dignity, however, the word he prefers is identity, “the term is stronger and more assertive”, he states. “It is necessary to give identity to journalism and journalists.” And the diagnosis he makes is severe: this identity “is shattered”.
The research with 100 Portuguese journalists thus ends up highlighting accumulated vulnerabilities. The groups’ financial crisis weakens the newsrooms; precariousness leaves professionals unprotected; the identity crisis erodes the recognition and authority of the profession; and, on this already fragile terrain, “technological pressures, misinformation, productive acceleration and the multiplication of external interference are intensifying” – Felisbela Lopes’ study shows a profession “surrounded by constraints that reinforce each other”.
Leave a Reply