Is Arts Journalism Losing Its Integrity?

When informed criticism is replaced by clickbait headlines, what happens to the purpose of arts journalism?

There was a time when an arts review was expected to do something rather unfashionable: make an argument.

A critic would sit in a theatre, gallery or concert hall, engage with the work, consider its successes and failures, place it within a wider artistic context and then attempt to explain to the reader why it mattered. The review did not necessarily have to be positive. In fact, the value of criticism was often found in disagreement.

Today, arts journalism exists within a very different media landscape.

The critic is no longer simply writing for a reader. They are writing for search engines, social media algorithms, engagement figures and increasingly, subscription models. A headline has to compete with hundreds of other pieces of content appearing on the same screen. It has to make someone stop scrolling.

‍ ‍

That creates a difficult question for the arts media: are we sacrificing the integrity of criticism and reporting in the pursuit of the click?

And perhaps more importantly, what happens when the headline becomes more important than the journalism underneath it?

The headline as bait

A recent example from The Stage caught my attention.

The headline reads: “Michèle Taylor: Reviewers need to be braver critiquing disabled artists’ work.”

The article reports on comments made by Michèle Taylor, director for change at Ramps on the Moon, who argued that reviewers can sometimes be reluctant to criticise work created by disabled artists. Taylor’s argument was that disabled artists should be afforded the same freedom to fail as anyone else, rather than being treated as representatives of an entire community. (The Stage)

There is a genuinely interesting discussion here, it is a discussion about criticism, disability representation, artistic standards and the uncomfortable responsibility of the critic. It is a subject worthy of serious arts journalism.

But look at what happens when that discussion is reduced to a headline.

The headline places the most provocative element of the story front and centre: reviewers need to be “braver”. It immediately creates a sense of confrontation. It suggests there is a problem within arts criticism and that somebody is failing to do their job properly.

That is effective journalism in one sense. It gives the reader a reason to click, but it also demonstrates the problem.

The more complicated the subject, the more tempting it becomes to extract the most provocative sentence and turn it into the headline and once that headline begins circulating on social media, it can become the story, the nuance is suddenly secondary.

We need to talk about paywalls

There is another layer to this problem, the headline is often the only part of an article that many people will actually encounter and this is particularly significant when journalism sits behind a paywall.

Paywalls are not inherently wrong. Journalism costs money. Writers, photographers, editors, researchers and publishers all have to be paid. In an industry that has suffered enormous financial pressure, expecting quality journalism to exist entirely for free is unrealistic.

But there is a strange contradiction emerging in digital journalism, the headline is free. The article is not.

That means the most provocative, emotionally charged or controversial element of a piece can be shared freely across social media, while the context needed to understand it properly is restricted to paying subscribers. The result can be an unusual form of journalism where the reaction to the article is potentially more accessible than the article itself.

A reader might see:

“Reviewers need to be braver critiquing disabled artists’ work.”

They might form an opinion,repost it, disagree, condemn it or even celebrate it

But unless they subscribe, they may never read the wider argument that explains what Taylor actually meant. That matters.

Arts journalism is already a niche form of journalism. It does not have the enormous audiences enjoyed by mainstream politics, celebrity news or sport. If the most interesting conversations about theatre, visual art, dance, literature and music become increasingly inaccessible, we risk creating an arts conversation that is available primarily to those who can afford to participate in it.

Clicks are not the same as cultural value

This is where the economics of digital journalism become uncomfortable, online publishers (like ourselves) need traffic. It can generate advertising revenue, subscriptions, memberships and commercial opportunities. It can also provide editors with evidence that particular stories are reaching an audience. But the things that generate clicks are not necessarily the things that have the greatest cultural value.

A thoughtful 2,000-word analysis of an emerging Welsh theatre company might receive a fraction of the engagement generated by a headline about a famous actor saying something controversial.

That does not mean the celebrity story is less worthy of coverage. It means that clicks are an imperfect measurement of cultural importance.

Ofcom has highlighted how online platforms and social media increasingly influence what news people encounter, with the ranking and presentation of stories affecting how much attention audiences give them. Its research also shows that online news consumption continues to grow while traditional news providers remain more highly trusted for accuracy and impartiality. (www.ofcom.org.uk)

The danger is obvious, if publishers increasingly measure success through attention alone, journalism can gradually become shaped around what people are most likely to click rather than what they most need to understand and arts journalism is particularly vulnerable to this.

What happened to the review?

There is another issue that deserves attention: the gradual softening of arts criticism. Many theatre reviews now seem to operate within a narrow spectrum of positivity.

A production is “joyful”, a performance is “mesmerising”, the cast is “outstanding”, the production is “not to be missed”.

There is nothing wrong with praising good work. A critic should absolutely celebrate artistic achievement when they encounter it. But criticism cannot simply become promotional copy and the responsibility of a critic is not to make everybody happy, it is to engage honestly with the work.

That might mean saying that a production is poorly directed. It might mean questioning the writing, performances, design or artistic choices. It might mean acknowledging that an important subject has been badly handled.

None of this means being cruel.

There is a significant difference between being critical and being unnecessarily negative, good criticism should be rigorous rather than vindictive, it should explain why something succeeds or fails.

That is precisely why Taylor’s comments about disabled artists are worth considering. If anything, the argument raises a broader question about the critic’s responsibility to artists from all backgrounds.

Are we genuinely reviewing the work? Or are we reviewing the story around the work?

The fear of offending

There are obvious reasons why criticism has become more complicated. Arts organisations are often operating with limited funding. Artists are working within precarious careers. Theatre companies depend on audiences. Freelance journalists depend on relationships with publications and publicists.

A negative review can have consequences. (as we know all too personally)

Critics are also increasingly aware of questions around representation, accessibility and whose voices are being given authority to judge artistic work.These are important developments, but sensitivity should not become an excuse for intellectual dishonesty.

If we believe an artist deserves to be taken seriously, then surely that includes taking their work seriously enough to criticise it.

There is something patronising about suggesting that a disabled artist, emerging artist, minority artist or artist from an underrepresented background should be protected from criticism.The same however, applies to praise.

If every production is described as brilliant, every performance is exceptional and every exhibition is extraordinary, then eventually those words stop meaning anything.A critic who is afraid to say that something does not work is not necessarily being kind. They may simply be failing the reader.

Journalism should provide context, not manufacture outrage

This brings us back to clickbait, there is a difference between a strong headline and a misleading one.

A strong headline tells you why a story is interesting.

A clickbait headline tells you that you must click to find out what the story is really about and the distinction can be subtle.

“Director argues reviewers should be more critical of disabled artists’ work” provides context.

“Reviewers need to be braver critiquing disabled artists’ work” creates a little more heat.

Neither is necessarily dishonest. The problem emerges when the headline becomes detached from the complexity of the article itself.That is when journalism starts to resemble social media and the headline becomes a provocation, the article becomes the explanation and increasingly, the explanation is hidden behind a subscription.

There is a broader media problem here. Ofcom has explicitly acknowledged that trusted journalism is competing for attention alongside unreliable clickbait in an increasingly fragmented online environment. (www.ofcom.org.uk)

The irony is that arts journalism should arguably be one of the places where we resist this trend most strongly.

Art is complicated.

Culture is complicated.

People are complicated.

A theatre production can be beautifully performed and badly directed. An exhibition can be politically important while being visually underwhelming. A musical can be technically brilliant but emotionally empty. An artist can produce extraordinary work and occasionally produce something that simply does not work.

The job of the critic is to navigate those contradictions, not flatten them.

We should expect more from arts journalism

This is not an argument for returning to some romantic golden age of arts criticism.

That golden age never really existed.

Arts journalism has always had its problems. Critics have always had biases. Publications have always had commercial interests. Editors have always influenced what gets covered. What has changed is the speed and scale at which these pressures operate.

Today, a headline can be written with search-ability in mind. It can be optimised for social media. It can be measured by clicks within minutes. It can be re-shared thousands of times before many people have even read the article.

That puts enormous pressure on journalists and editors.

But it also makes editorial responsibility more important, not less.

If arts journalism is going to survive, it needs to convince audiences that it offers something that an algorithm cannot; context, knowledge, experience, argument, perspective.

And, occasionally, the courage to say: this did not work. Not because negativity sells, because criticism matters.

The arts deserve better than promotional journalism

Perhaps the biggest danger is not actually clickbait itself, it’s the gradual erosion of the distinction between journalism and marketing.

Arts organisations need publicity. Artists need audiences. Publications need revenue. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of that, but a review should not become an extended press release, an interview should not simply reproduce talking points and a headline should not deliberately manufacture outrage where none exists.

Criticism should not be softened until it becomes meaningless. The arts need journalism willing to ask difficult questions, we need writers who understand the history and context of the work they are discussing.They need critics who can praise without becoming promotional and criticise without becoming cruel. Most importantly, they need readers who understand that journalism has value beyond the number of clicks it generates.

The future of arts journalism cannot simply be about getting somebody to click, it has to be about giving them something worth reading once they do.

Because if the headline is the most interesting part of the article, perhaps the problem isn’t the audience.

Perhaps it is the journalism.