The BBC has done real journalism, and still does, but it is also suffers from the same archaic mess of an ideology that felled North American journalism.
And this article shows it very clearly:
The future of digital journalism: What can we expect?
There is none. You have no innovators. Your system is broken. The end.
Digital journalism was now. It is not a question about the future. Journalism went into the digital realm, got its arrogant and worthless backside kicked, and it died.
What the Internet is -- at best -- is a gladiatorial arena where competing powers and ideologies are currently fighting for supremacy. Journalism never saw the obvious, and strutted in thinking it was emperor, and then got run over by chariots called Facebook and Twitter.
The nincompoopity of the political Left helped along because the rubes honestly thought the Right were all a bunch of crotchety and mangy old geezers who wouldn't get this whole Internet thing, and all the young people would leave their family's bridge tables and take over the world with their hip and "with it" ideology and the Left would live hoarily ever after.
Except people on the Right also have Internet access, too, and use it.
And guys like Donald Trump managed to use Twitter to get all sorts of cool swag with it, including the White House.
Now it is a flat-out brawl, and journalism had no place in this war because this is the first war that could cover itself.
Journalists weren't actually needed. Trump proved it. #MeToo proved it.
Journalism got shuffled out of this deck entirely.
So there is no "future." Digital is dominent reality at the moment, but it will not dominate long enough for it to be necessary to transfer everything to a digital medium.
Once upon a time we took pictures on plates. Then film. Then we could put them on disks, CD, tapes, and memory sticks. We had vinyl, cassettes, 8-tracks and CD, but our technology has never been stable. It is volatile by nature, and now we live in a generation whose entire life histories can be erased in a heartbeat and become a mystery to future generations. (Which reminds me of a question of a very good game called Mind Trap. I had the original version, and the cassette version, and one of the questions on the latter asked why did we know more about a certain period of ancient history that came before another period. The answer was that stone tablets -- the older technology survived more than the advance papyrus paper that rotted over time. The same is true for this era: we may very well have computers and clouds, but one cyber attack, and everything gets wiped clean. How many of your pictures you took over the last twenty years are gone because a computer was stolen or broken?)
So anyone that prattles about digital as if it were future-focussed misses the point: the Internet -- the Fourth Medium -- is now the medium of war. It is about gaining ideological supremacy. It got co-opted as a sell medium, not a tell one. The problem is once that happened, it became infected to the point that it is going to lose favour with those whose ideology lost, and they will drift away, as they are now doing. Once you have Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter banning accounts on the basis of ideology, you have offended customers. They will no longer believe you, and will go elsewhere, meaning a Fifth Medium is ripe to become a jumping off point away from the old medium. And when other people don't get what they want from the Internet, either, they also become disenfranchised and go elsewhere. Remember, the Internet, for all its bells and whistles, is not the only game in town.
The Internet managed to lure people, but its customer service skills have been very bad lately. To appear politically correct to the Left, it has pandered to their ideas of what is good and moral, forgetting theirs is but one of many ideologies. They get offended by someone who doesn't applaud them and then want to stomp those people into the ground while demonizing them because the Internet marketed itself as some sort of Utopian device that will deliver to you everything you ever desired.
You cannot place your backside on two chairs. Social media overplayed their hand telling everyone how fabulous and perfect they are, and they all have potential to be superstars. It was a bald-face lie served up to get more people hooked on their product.
Now comes the point -- because the Internet allows anyone to broadcast anywhere -- where some people get offended by reality, and they demand that offending reality be removed so they can go on with their fantasy delusion. People become vilified and then those people get upset because that is not what they signed up for.
The Internet is starting to bring in serious ill will to scores of people -- it was the same thing that eventually did journalism in. The robber barons of the Internet learned absolutely nothing from their oblivious forefathers. This is the weakness where we are already seeing signs of people losing their enthusiasm for social media.
That means there isn't a future in digital journalism. You have pseudo-journalistic properties, such as Discourse Media trying to get money with its partisan and patriarchal approach that does nothing new or different from the old model of journalism. It talks a good talk that appeals strictly to the sheltered Left in Canada who think universities and government will solve all of their problems as they make nonsensical decrees and slick promises. It can do none of these things. It markets itself as being future-focussed, but it isn't. It is stuck in the same ideological abyss as the old guard because it thinks the future is digital.
Those who proclaim to be journalists keep making the same mistake -- it sees the present as the future, which it is not. Digital is no longer a medium so much as it is a battleground. Once that war is over, so too, is the Fourth Medium as a dominant force. It will leave a legacy, but it will not be where we get our facts so much as we get our bank statements and takeout dinner.
Journalism was the first casualty on the digital battleground. It died because it long ago forgot that its purpose was to give facts to people. It was giving spin for so long that it no longer realized it was a tool for elites to tell the middle class how to think. Once the gate-keepers lost their power, there was no going back. People were liberated, and they went on an ideological rampage.
Had journalism always stuck to the facts, that wouldn't have happened. But it did. There would be an easy transition to digital twenty years ago, and we wouldn't be having these discussions at all.
The "journalism" outlets that started online have the same arrogant swagger and utterly cluelessness that felled the old guard. They honestly believe that they are different just because they started on the Internet. Structure, technique, and skill mean nothing to them.
And also is the reality of the present. You have digital. You have clueless blowhards preaching from the same old bibles.
But what you don't have is actual journalism. Just unreasonable facsimiles of it littering the information stream.