Subjective Magazine, Csaba Beatrix
The emergence of the internet and social media has significantly reshaped the balance of supply and demand that previously existed in the media landscape. With a large volume of content—such as movies, music, and online games—now freely available, and access to information both mostly free and nearly limitless, the media landscape of the 21st century is undergoing a profound transformation. The printed press has found itself among the “big losers” in this scenario, while traditional media channels are now facing significant competition from the internet.
We spoke with Gábor Polyák, Director of the Institute for Art Theory and Media Research at ELTE University and a researcher at the Mérték Media Analysis Workshop, about how journalism, as a profession, might evolve in light of these challenges.
Gábor Polyák: Progress is unstoppable. The internet has brought about rapid change. Free access to information is, overall, a good thing—it enhances education and provides people with greater awareness. However, this has fundamentally transformed the role of media. The press has become highly politicized, and the big question is: how does the public manage the sheer abundance of information available to them? Does having more means of communication actually lead to a better-informed society?
While content providers have adapted to online accessibility, free access has posed a major challenge to revenues. Online advertising has become far more intense—not only visually distracting but often interfering with the readability of articles, with ads breaking up the text every few lines, sometimes even as video content. This shift means that consumers now make snap decisions in two or three seconds: will they read the article or click the ad? And, crucially, do they return to the original content afterward?
Media is a provider of information, but ultimately, how that information is received and interpreted is a decision made by the individual reader, listener, or viewer. It’s not just about what people read, watch, or listen to; it’s about what conclusions they draw from it. The purpose of media has always been to influence people through information. There is no substantial difference in that the owner of the channel or medium decides what, when, and how to communicate.
Cs.B.: It’s undeniable that what is presented to people can shape and define their thinking.
G.P.: There is a significant difference between journalism as a profession today compared to a few decades ago. With the advent of the internet and social media, bloggers, vloggers, YouTubers, influencers, and other content creators have quickly amassed large followings. These people, however, are often not trained media professionals, which can lead to a shift in both communication style and ethical direction.
Readership and viewership drive everything. The complexity is compounded by the fact that social media relies on highly sophisticated algorithms, effectively providing “personalized” content based on individual consumption habits. It pushes forward topics that a user clicks on most often, which fundamentally changes the landscape. For journalists, this alters how they can reach their audience, and it heavily influences advertisers. Despite these challenges, advertising remains crucial to sustaining the press.
Cs.B.: Hungarian media laws seem unable to manage content on social platforms. Is there a way out of this?
This creates a kind of “vicious circle,” prompting questions about what journalism means today and where the profession is headed. The content consumption habits of younger generations are markedly different from a few years ago. In a world overflowing with information, people receive new stimuli around the clock, while education—and adult life, for that matter—doesn’t operate that way. Focus and sustained attention are still needed, whether in school or at work. People need to learn a level of discipline, even as the world moves toward more real-time, faster flows of information. At the same time, they must learn how to make informed choices. Today, you don’t even need a computer to access online content; a smartphone is enough.
With broadband internet, practically anything is available at any moment, regardless of where we are—at home, commuting, or at work. This means that every age group is affected, and let’s face it, adults also lack self-control when it comes to online content consumption. There is no universal solution, but one thing is clear: both education and the press must adapt. The winners will be those who can best meet these evolving needs. This, in turn, will define the future direction of journalism as a profession. Still, it is worth fighting to uphold professional standards and preserve space for quality journalism.
Cs.B.: What can the journalistic profession do to foster a forward-thinking discourse that makes high-quality information a desirable trend?
G.P.: First, people must be incentivized to seek out quality—regardless of the topic. Unfortunately, the culture for this did not really develop after the regime change. Perhaps the thrill of free speech and the learning process of democracy are partly responsible. It will certainly take more time to change.
Another crucial aspect is that the media should not be driven solely by the imperative of sustainability. Currently, the press is forced to follow public demand rather than set a quality benchmark. What’s also needed are genuine discussions and face-to-face meetings where experts and content creators sit down together and establish a common platform that upholds both accurate reporting and freedom of expression. Once that is achieved, efforts must focus on how to genuinely reach people with quality content.
Cs.B.: How can we effectively balance trustworthy reporting, knowledge sharing, and entertainment while keeping the audience engaged?
G.P.: This can only happen if everyone involved has a vested interest in making it so. It also means shaping societal demands, starting in childhood. There is much to be done, but I’m also not entirely convinced that those in power want a society of independent, well-informed, quality-driven individuals. Otherwise, this might already have been achieved. It seems that a passive, easily influenced mass suits those in power better.
Cs.B.: Considering all of this, what are the realistic prospects?
G.P.: I believe it’s worth fighting for every person. Professional expertise is one pillar; quality journalism starts with education. We need media platforms that offer alternatives.
Cs.B.: As long as there is a choice, there is hope for quality content consumption.
G.P.: It’s also worth considering how communication skills can be incorporated into basic education. It would be beneficial if content creation, in any form, required some kind of qualification—at least a basic understanding of professional standards should be required for anyone reaching out to and influencing people.
This doesn’t mean restricting forms of content creation, but it does mean ensuring that anyone who appears on any platform at least possesses basic professional knowledge. The third pillar is the issue of financing. As long as the media is financially vulnerable, it cannot be independent. In theory, anyone can create a media platform today, but it is important to know that sustaining it must be self-financed. Media companies do not emerge from nowhere. The costs are substantial, and success is far from guaranteed. Even in the digital media sphere, there is still no foolproof recipe for success.
In Western Europe, there are examples of quality media products funded by state support or public money. Currently, no such system exists in Hungary, even though the government spends enormous sums of public money on communication content. However, the allocation of these funds clearly serves only the government's own interests, and this also applies to public media. This is a kind of Hungarian peculiarity, far removed from the foundations of democracy and international trends. Today, the goal at home is not broad, reliable information. Yet the vast sums spent each year would be enough to sustain a genuinely high-quality domestic media landscape.
When all these factors are taken into account, the question arises: where is there space for objective and credible journalism, and how can it be funded in Hungary? Independent journalism is fundamentally about values. Objectivity should be the foundation of journalism. The credibility of information should be more important than serving personal interests. This is an ethical issue for the press. People are not neutral, and neither is the media. But this must not come at the expense of accurate reporting. Political influence and financial inequalities have undeniably become key issues, and this falls under the broader question of democracy.
Cs.B.: Hungary is a full member of the European Union. Does this have any influence on the state of the Hungarian media? What is the EU’s perspective?
G.P.: The European Union could have taken action as early as 2011 when the media law was drafted, but it did not, even though the issue was discussed. No concrete steps were taken. At the level of action, Brussels’ bureaucracy seemingly didn’t deem it important enough to make real recommendations. Although there were committee hearings, reports, and consultations, there simply wasn’t enough interest. Even if it is evident that the distribution of public funds distorts competition in Hungary, and the funding of public service media is far from transparent or aligned with European expectations. Nowhere in Europe is there a media landscape like the one in Hungary—not even in former socialist countries. In reality, democracy and media freedom remain little more than desirable but unfulfilled ideals.
