:How Committed Media Can Rebuild Their Credibility in the Era of Generative AI

Abstract

In an era dominated by social media and generative AI, the ideology of news urgency—prioritizing speed over accuracy, context, and public value—has become a primary driver of declining trust in journalism. This article traces the roots of this crisis to the attention economy, in which metrics such as clicks and engagement overshadow traditional journalistic values. Drawing on historical cases such as the Boston Marathon bombing, the Ebola crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic, it illustrates how haste leads to errors, oversimplification, and societal harm. The advent of AI exacerbates these issues by enabling the instantaneous production of content, both true and false, rendering speed obsolete as a competitive edge. Instead, reliability emerges as the key advantage. The article proposes an alternative editorial model that treats urgency as a tool rather than an ideology, categorizing news by importance and advocating for pauses, transparency, and AI integration for verification. It addresses counterarguments, including AI’s potential as a truth-saver and economic sustainability concerns, emphasizing that trust-based models foster long-term viability. Extending the analysis to the Global South and Iran, it highlights how urgency amplifies risks in censored environments, positioning the truth-oriented approach as essential for democratic resilience and development. Ultimately, committed media must reclaim authority by prioritizing citizen needs over algorithmic demands.

Keywords: News urgency; Media credibility; Generative AI; Journalism ethics; Public trust; Authoritarian media

Please be advised that this essay is not a peer-reviewed paper

---

Introduction

Today, most news labelled ‘breaking’ reflects the media’s race against competitors, not immediate impacts on our lives. The virtue of news urgency has shifted to an ideology obsessed with speed, replacing accuracy, social need, and truth with the need for quick visibility and excitement. In the age of social media and generative AI, this ideology is inefficient and a primary driver of declining public trust.

Roots of the Crisis: When Speed Became an Ideology

Today, speed shapes editorial and business decisions more than anything else. It has shifted from one news value among many—like accuracy, social impact, and verification—to the primary goal. ‘Being first’ is often the target, not a tool. This change didn’t happen out of journalistic necessity, but from rising competition in the ‘attention economy.’

Years ago, Herbert Simon warned that data and news aren’t scarce; attention is. In this world, a message’s value depends on its ability to grab attention, even just for seconds. Tim Wu and Shoshana Zuboff show that attention’s economic value pushes speed and excitement. These are not more accurate, but they capture attention faster (Wu 2016; Zuboff 2019).

This logic changes newsroom priorities. Instead of asking, ‘What does the audience need to know today?’, editors now focus on, ‘What will keep the audience watching?’. This change is subtle but decisive. When visibility pays, media—even unintentionally—chase speed and urgency, often at the cost of completeness.

News media have reshaped their business around metrics like views, clicks, and engagement. Reuters Institute reports show these metrics guide editorial choices—from topics and timing to headlines and tone. As a result, topics lacking immediate appeal are sidelined or rushed. Speed becomes the standard for news value, not accuracy or depth (Newman et al. 2025).

Social networks sped up this shift. Media now operate by rules set by platforms, not editors. Algorithms—not people—decide what is visible. Emily Bell and colleagues found that newsrooms adapt their timing, tone, and priorities to fit algorithms that prioritize engagement over responsible journalism (Bell et al. 2017).

The consequences of this adaptation can be seen in real, documented cases:

• 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing: The rush for speed led media and social networks to name innocent people as suspects. Verification was incomplete. The correction came later, but social damage—from stigma to threats—was irreversible. This case became a classic example of “urgency without a pause” (“Boston ‘Witchhunt'” 2013).
• 2014 Ebola Crisis: Rushed early reports and exaggerations created an apocalyptic view of transmission risks. Scientific realities did not match this picture. Later studies show this did not inform the public. Instead, it fed fear and distrust (Sell et al. 2017).
• COVID-19 Pandemic: Early in the pandemic, the rush to publish incomplete scientific findings led to frequent changes in recommendations. While evolving science is normal, sharing results without noting uncertainty seems unstable. Researchers call this a clear case of conflict between speed and trust (“Social Media Used to Spread” 2020).

Daniel Hallin and Barbie Zelizer found that urgency increases the likelihood of mistakes, oversimplification, and emotional framing. Instead of providing context, the media often repeat instant reactions. Reaction replaces professional judgment (Hallin and Mancini 2004; Zelizer 1992).

The problem is not just errors. Professional standards have changed. When speed rules, newsrooms ask, ‘Will waiting put us behind?’ instead of, ‘Is this correct and needed?’ This focus on speed turns urgency into an organizational ideology—one presented as natural and inevitable.

To illustrate further, consider the broader implications in diverse media landscapes. In competitive markets, this ideology perpetuates a cycle in which outlets mimic one another, amplifying sensationalism. Studies from the Reuters Institute indicate that audiences increasingly perceive news as overwhelming and unreliable, leading to higher rates of news avoidance (Newman et al. 2025). This erosion of engagement underscores the inefficiency of urgency-driven models. Moreover, in emerging digital ecosystems, where user-generated content competes with professional journalism, speed often favours unverified narratives, further diluting trust.

Empirical data from the 2025 Reuters Institute Digital News Report reveal that trust in news has fallen to historic lows in many countries, with only 40% of respondents trusting most news most of the time, stable but low for the third consecutive year (Newman et al. 2025). This decline is particularly pronounced among younger audiences, who turn to social media influencers for information, highlighting the need for journalism to differentiate itself through rigour rather than rapidity. For instance, in countries like Hungary and Greece, trust stands at a mere 22%, while in Thailand it reaches 49%, illustrating global variances but an overall downward trend (Newman et al. 2025).

To truly restore trust and relevance, media professionals must critically reassess the ideology of urgency and intentionally prioritize accuracy, context, and public value over speed. Only by making this shift—through conscious editorial decisions and organizational realignments—can the media reclaim its credibility and essential social role. Let us commit, as journalists and media leaders, to resisting the pressure to rush and instead to invest in standards that serve the public interest. The future of credible journalism depends on our willingness to make these changes now.

Challenges of the AI Era: Speed is No Longer an Advantage

Today, the primary contest isn’t media versus media—it’s media versus platforms. Platforms rank and optimize news before it’s even read. Algorithms, not truth, determine what we see, hide, or rate as ‘relevant.’ Engagement—never accuracy—rules these decisions.

Tarleton Gillespie says algorithms aren’t neutral—they shape the public sphere by choosing and ranking content. When algorithms push news up or bury it, power shifts without journalist oversight. Zeynep Tufekci calls this “engineering the public sphere.” It happens by hiding, down-ranking, or changing context—not always through censorship (Gillespie 2014; Tufekci 2017).

In this system, speed doesn’t guarantee visibility. If content doesn’t suit algorithms, it disappears—no matter how fast it’s published. Reuters Institute reports confirm news now travels through platform gates, raising concerns about misinformation and news avoidance (Newman et al. 2025).

Generative AI changes everything. Algorithms shaped distribution; now AI shapes production. Text, images, and video appear instantly and cheaply. Real news, rumours, and fakes all publish at the same speed. Algorithms judge content by ‘engage-ability,’ ignoring truth.

UNESCO reports show that with generative AI, publication can outrun reality. Fakes appear sooner and can seem ‘more convincing’ because they aim to persuade, not inform (“Deepfakes and the Crisis” 2025).

Recent examples reveal the risk. Fake videos and audio of politicians are spread online before the politicians deny them. Research shows even experts miss advanced fakes. In these conditions, speed helps spread falsehoods rather than truth (Ferreira Caceres et al. 2022).

Expanding on this, AI’s role in misinformation during global events like the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates how rapid dissemination of unverified claims led to public confusion and policy backlash. Studies show that AI-generated content, when amplified by algorithms, can create echo chambers that further polarize societies (Ferreira Caceres et al. 2022). This dynamic not only undermines journalism but also threatens democratic discourse by blurring fact from fiction at unprecedented scales. For instance, a 2022 study updated in 2025 on misinformation’s impact during COVID-19 found that false narratives spread 6 times faster than truthful ones on social platforms, contributing to vaccine hesitancy and societal division (Ferreira Caceres et al. 2022). Moreover, recent surveys indicate that only 26% of respondents trust information produced by AI, with 68% deeming it untrustworthy, underscoring the erosion of confidence in AI-driven content (Newman et al. 2025).

This is where the media’s attempt to be “first” becomes a trap: To prevent amplifying false narratives, media organizations should prioritize verification over speed—even if it means publishing a few minutes later. They should invest in fact-checking resources, dedicate time to editorial review, and make transparency about information gaps a standard practice. When facing algorithmic incentives, media must consciously prioritize professional standards over engagement metrics, even if this limits immediate visibility.

Counter-argument: Can AI be the Saviour of Truth?

Against this critique, an optimistic argument is usually raised: that the same AI tools that made faking easy can be used for detection, massive data analysis, and fact-checking. To leverage this potential, media organizations should actively adopt AI-based verification tools, train staff to interpret AI findings, and communicate clearly with audiences about how these technologies inform their reporting.

This argument is correct at the tool level—but incomplete. The same research shows that the ability to produce fakes has grown alongside the ability to detect them. Tools that were sufficient yesterday to detect deepfakes have fallen behind today’s advanced fabrications. In other words, AI is not just a fact-checking tool but a reinforcer of systemic risk—unless used within an institutional and professional framework (“Deepfakes and the Crisis” 2025).

And here we reach the core argument: accurate tools, without the proper structure, do not produce truth. If the dominant logic of media is the logic of urgency and competition for visibility, AI tools—even those designed for fact-checking—serve that same logic: faster fact-checking, not for a more accurate narrative, but to publish it sooner; and data analysis, not for depth, but to outpace competitors.

Media studies critiques have repeatedly warned that technology does not operate in a vacuum; algorithms and AI reinforce the systemic values in which they are employed. Without a newsroom that has the right to delay publication, without a professional culture that considers saying “we don’t know” a virtue. Without relative independence from the algorithmic pressure of platforms, AI becomes an accelerator of information chaos rather than a saviour of truth—even with good intentions.

Distinguishing Between News: Urgency as a Tool, Not an Ideology

One of the fundamental errors of contemporary media is the blurring of distinctions between news types. In urgency-oriented logic, all events are potentially treated as “breaking news,” as if the only criterion of importance is the speed of publication. Meanwhile, classic journalism traditions—from news value theory to professional ethics—have always emphasized the segregation of different types of importance.

Journalism studies show that “news importance” is not a one-dimensional concept. Researchers such as Johan Galtung and Mari Ruge explained decades ago that the “newsworthiness” of an event results from a combination of factors, including social impact, proximity, power involvement, long-term consequences, and the need to inform. Urgency is only one of these factors—not the final metric (Galtung and Ruge 1965).

However, in today’s media logic, this ratio has been inverted. Urgency does not act as a situational feature but as the dominant decision-making framework. The result is that the media, instead of asking “How does this news affect the audience’s life?”, ask: “If we don’t publish now, who will get ahead of us?”

Contemporary critiques in media ethics and cultural studies view this situation as a sign of “institutional hurriedness.” Hannah Arendt—though not directly about media—warned that the absence of pause and judgment paves the way for replacing judgment with reaction. In urgency-oriented media, this substitution has clearly occurred: rapid reaction replaces responsible analysis (Arendt 1982).

Why shouldn’t everything be urgent?

The reality is that only a portion of the news is inherently urgent. Warnings for public life and safety, immediate changes in living or legal conditions, or events where a delay in reporting has direct consequences, undoubtedly require rapid publication. But generalizing this logic to all events distorts the news function.

Research on media coverage of crises shows that the rushed publication of incomplete information does not increase public awareness; it can produce confusion, anxiety, and distrust. Barbie Zelizer has been demonstrated that “knowing fast” does not necessarily mean “knowing better,” and sometimes responsible delay is the condition for more accurate understanding (Zelizer 1992).

The examples are clear: the death of a celebrity, momentary fluctuations in financial markets, or provocative comments by politicians on social networks. Knowing these things at the exact moment is neither a vital necessity for most audiences nor does it help informed decision-making. What matters is placing these events in an analytical context; a context usually achieved through pause and scrutiny, not haste.

To expand, empirical data from global surveys reveal that audiences value depth in non-urgent topics, such as policy analysis or investigative reports, which build long-term engagement (Newman et al. 2025). This suggests that differentiating news types can enhance retention and trust. Moreover, communication theory posits that over-emphasis on urgency contributes to “compassion fatigue” among audiences, where constant alerts desensitize rather than inform (Newman et al. 2025).

The audience needs segregation, not a flood of information.

From the perspective of communication studies, today’s audience faces an abundance of disorganized information rather than a shortage. Research on “news fatigue” shows that the accumulation of urgent, shallow news is one factor leading audiences to withdraw from following the news. In such conditions, the role of the media is not to add to the volume of the stream, but to create distinction and meaning (Newman et al. 2025).

This is where committed media can play a regulatory role: determining which news should be urgent, which needs explanation, and which is not worth becoming an independent news item. This determination is not based on taste but is professional and grounded in clear criteria.

Proposal for an Alternative Editorial Model

Based on the arguments of this article, an editorial model can be proposed that returns urgency from an ideology to a tool:

1. Structural Segregation of News:
2. Vital Urgent News (Security, life, immediate rights)
3. Important Non-Urgent News (Requiring analysis and context)
4. Low-importance or Peripheral News (Which can be omitted or aggregated)
5. Institutional Right to Pause: The newsroom must have the right to delay the publication of certain news, not as a failure, but as a professional decision. This right must be protected against algorithmic and competitive pressure.
6. Separating Information from Interpretation: In necessary cases, minimal initial information can be provided, but analysis and interpretation should be deferred until data is more complete. This segregation prevents speculation from becoming fact.
7. Transparency About Not Knowing: Saying “we do not have enough information yet” should become a norm, not a weakness. Media trust studies show that this transparency increases media credibility in the long run (Bell et al. 2017).

In this model, urgency is not eliminated; it is tamed. Speed, instead of directing the newsroom, serves social necessity. Distinguishing between news is the condition for rebuilding media authority. In a world where everything can seem urgent, a media outlet that knows what not to make urgent is not backward, but responsible. This responsibility is the ethical core of journalism in the era of generative AI. Further, implementing this model could involve training programs and workflow redesigns, as seen in outlets adopting “slow journalism” principles, which emphasize quality over quantity. Research supports that such approaches correlate with higher audience loyalty and perceived credibility (Newman et al. 2025).

The Audience in this Chaos: From Consumer to Citizen

For an audience member—whether a digital native or a traditional citizen—the fundamental question is the same: in this information chaos, where can one take refuge?

Communication studies have long shown that the audience’s main problem today is not a lack of information, but an abundance of disorganized information. Research on “information overload” and “news fatigue”—including numerous reports from the Reuters Institute—shows that the bombardment of urgent, superficial, and contradictory news does not lead to increased awareness, but to citizens withdrawing from following the news. In this situation, the audience gradually transforms from an informed actor into a tired consumer (Newman et al. 2025).

In a world where individual users, influencers, and personal networks are sometimes seen more than major media, innovation and the diversity of voices have increased. This evolution is not inherently harmful. However, journalism studies warn that the absence of editorial structure, institutional accountability, and shared professional standards makes this space prone to rumours, polarization, and the reproduction of desired narratives. Here, “freedom of expression” does not necessarily lead to “responsible reporting.”

A crucial point the author must emphasize here: the argument of this article is in no way, shape, or form opposed to freedom of expression. No interpretation of this text or argument should conclude that there is a necessity for censorship, barriers, or auditing structures for personal or professional media. This argument proposes a solution within this free world and stands firmly against any attempt to limit freedom of speech under any name, even in the name of citizen awareness.

The critical point is that the audience is not entirely passive either. Studies in political psychology and communication show that humans tend to accept narratives that align with their identity, beliefs, and emotions—even when these narratives lack factual credibility. But this reality is not a justification for media retreat; it is a double reason for its necessity.

Similarly, communication studies show that what is often described as news avoidance is not necessarily indifference, but a form of conscious action against information chaos. Many audiences intentionally limit news consumption because they find it anxiety-inducing, contradictory, or unreliable. This choice is a manifestation of “agency”—but without a responsible media presence, this decision can lead to isolation and polarization (Newman et al. 2025).

From the perspective of democratic theories, the media is not merely an entertainment channel or a field of dispute. Thinkers like Jürgen Habermas have emphasized that a democratic public sphere only functions when citizens have access to reliable, contextually relevant, and assessable information. Without such media, the voter instead makes an uninformed decision, driven by emotion, fear, or incomplete narratives (Habermas 1989).

This is where the role of official and professional media regains its meaning, not as a dominant voice, but as a standard-setting reference: an institution whose methods, processes, and criteria can be trusted—even when the outcome of its work is not pleasing to us. Such media recognize the audience not as a consumer of excitement, but as a citizen with the right to know and the ability to judge.

To deepen this, empirical evidence from polarized societies shows that trusted media outlets serve as anchors, mitigating echo chambers by providing balanced, verified perspectives (Newman et al. 2025). For example, in countries with high news avoidance rates, such as the UK and the US, audiences report greater reliance on a few credible sources for in-depth analysis rather than frequent updates. Globally, news avoidance has reached 40% in 2025, up from 29% in 2017, with 40% of respondents across 48 countries sometimes or often actively avoiding news (Newman et al. 2025).

The Way Forward: Rebuilding Credibility and Reviving the Democratic Role of Media

If we accept that the media is one of the pillars of democracy, then rebuilding its credibility is not a matter of taste, but a political and social necessity. But this reconstruction is not possible through slogans and nostalgia; it requires specific institutional and editorial choices.

The model proposed in this article—which returns urgency from an ideology to a tool—can directly compensate for the shortcomings of the status quo:

1. Hybrid Model of Publication and Trust Restoration: By clearly segregating vital, urgent news from news requiring analysis, the media can fulfil its duty of urgent reporting while avoiding the trap of haste. Trust research shows that, in the long run, audiences prefer accuracy and honesty over speed—provided this choice is explained transparently.
2. Institutional Use of AI, Not Algorithm-Driven: Investment in AI that serves verification, deepfake detection, data analysis, and myth-busting—rather than emotional content production—can increase the power of professional media. The key difference is AI as a newsroom tool, not an attention-grabbing engine. This distinction is where technology helps strengthen democracy rather than weaken it.
3. Professional Transparency and Rebuilding the Relationship with Citizens: Saying “we don’t know,” explaining why publication was delayed, and clearly separating news from analysis are not signs of weakness but of institutional maturity. Studies show that such transparency strengthens the audience’s sense of respect and transforms them from passive consumers into participating citizens.

Comparison of Two Media Logics

Feature	Urgency-Oriented Model	Truth-Oriented Model
Priority	Speed and Visibility	Accuracy and Social Necessity
Audience Role	Consumer of Excitement	Informed Citizen
Media Function	Entertainment and Dispute	Fourth Estate of Democracy
Success Metric	Clicks and Engagement	Trust and Credibility
Long-term Outcome	Erosion of Public Trust	Revival of Media Authority

Is this model economically sustainable?

The most critical and serious critique of this view is market-oriented: that moving away from the logic of urgency, algorithms, and audience engagement, though desirable on ethical or democratic grounds, is economically unrealistic. Critics will say a media outlet that publishes less is seen less; and a media outlet seen less cannot cover its costs.

One must be clear: the model defended in this article does not apply to all media in the same way. For small and independent press, without institutional backing or sustainable resources, moving away from algorithms and urgency can be risky—especially in conditions where digital advertising revenue is structurally declining.

This critique is fundamental and must be taken seriously. Changing the model proposed here has a cost: it requires more specialized human resources, time-consuming verification processes, more expensive analytical tools, and, in the short term, even accepting a decrease in traffic. Denying these costs would rob the text of its credibility.

However, the fundamental error of the market-oriented critique lies in its assumptions about the sustainability of the current model.

• False Assumption 1: The algorithm-oriented model is economically sustainable. Media economics research shows that extreme dependence on digital advertising and engagement metrics, while perhaps profitable in the short term, erodes trust and reduces the media’s economic value in the long run. Consecutive Reuters Institute Digital News Reports have clearly shown that declines in trust in media are directly related to reduced subscriptions, reduced willingness to pay, and increased news avoidance (Newman et al. 2025).
• Simply put, the urgency-oriented model not only creates a trust crisis but also a hidden revenue crisis. An audience that comes only for excitement is not loyal, and a media outlet that produces only for the algorithm is easily replaceable—either by another media outlet, an individual producer, or AI.
• False Assumption 2: The audience is not willing to pay for “slower but more accurate.” Studies on trust-based subscription models show that audiences are willing to pay for media they consider reliable—even if it is not the fastest. Media economics researchers have repeatedly emphasized that the willingness to pay is more a function of trust, distinction, and analytical added value than speed (Newman et al. 2025).

Within this framework, the model proposed in this article is not anti-market; instead, it redefines the media’s value proposition, shifting from “being first” to “being reliable.”

Why is this model particularly feasible for large media?

Market-oriented critiques usually ignore a key point: large, institutional media can exit algorithmic dependence precisely because they have financial resources, a historical brand, and infrastructure.

Comparative studies in the political economy of media show that large media can—and in some cases should—use models that do not have a direct dependence on clicks and urgency, including:

• Subscription models based on institutional trust, not content volume.
• Public or semi-public support with rigid editorial walls, which, in the “public-interest journalism” literature, is recognized as a legitimate way to maintain media independence.
• Revenue diversification through in-depth reports, data-driven analysis, analytical archives, research services, and knowledge products—models that all depend on credibility, not algorithms.

These are not idealistic proposals; they are the exact paths the academic literature recommends for the media to exit the click-driven cycle. For instance, successful transitions by outlets such as The Guardian, which rely on reader donations tied to trust, illustrate viability (Newman et al. 2025).

Cost is an investment, not a waste.

From the perspective of democratic theories and political communication, the media is not merely an economic firm; it is the infrastructure of the public sphere. Weakening professional media has costs far beyond the balance sheet: a decrease in the quality of political decision-making, increased polarization, and the weakening of the informed voter. This eventually benefits those who rely on societal ignorance to secure votes for group or personal ends, imposing fundamental costs on democratic institutions and societal development.

In this framework, spending on the truth-oriented model—even if more expensive in the short term—is a form of long-term social and economic investment. A media outlet that maintains trust can build a sustainable financial model, but one that sacrifices trust for urgency will, sooner or later, lose both credibility and revenue. Evidence from subscription growth in trusted brands during crises supports this, showing resilience amid industry declines (Newman et al. 2025). Moreover, the 2025 Reuters Institute report notes that platforms like TikTok and Instagram now dominate news discovery for 57% of under-35s, pushing traditional media to innovate through quality to retain paying audiences (Newman et al. 2025).

The Necessity of the Truth-Oriented Model in the Global South and Iran: Responding to Structural Limitations

A large portion of critical media literature emphasizes that the conditions of media work in the Global South—especially in societies with structural political, economic, and technological limitations—are fundamentally different from those in established democracies. In these spaces, the media faces not only the market and technology but also political power, censorship, legal insecurity, and the war of narratives.

In such conditions, the logic of urgency is not just a professional weakness; it can become a tool for intensifying harm.

1. Urgency in Suppressed Contexts has Asymmetrical Costs: Political communication research shows that in societies like Iran, the rushed publication of news—even if the intent is to inform—can have consequences rarely seen in Western media: including increased risk for news sources and activists, facilitating identification and suppression, and providing legal excuses for further media restrictions. Studies of media in authoritarian regimes have shown that high speed, without the possibility of verification and contextualization, often benefits the dominant power, as inevitable media errors are quickly used to discredit the entire flow of independent information (Sato 2024). In this space, every mistake—even a small one—has a high cost. Therefore, an “editorial pause” is not conservatism, but a survival strategy.
2. The War of Narratives in the Global South is Asymmetrical: Unlike many Western societies, independent media in Iran and many Global South countries operate under conditions of a war of narratives; a war where governments have massive propaganda resources, pseudo-media networks are active, and now, AI tools have been added to the equation. Academic literature on propaganda, disinformation, and information warfare shows that in such environments, urgency is more of an entry point for influence than a tool for enlightenment. Fake or semi-fake narratives are usually designed to trigger a rapid reaction—a reaction the urgency-oriented media is prone to (Kermani 2025).
3. Infrastructure Weakness Makes Urgency More Dangerous: Media development research shows that in many countries in the Global South, access to reliable data is limited, institutional transparency is low, and rapid verification is impossible. In such conditions, imitating the urgency-oriented model of countries with strong infrastructure is not only inefficient but dangerous. Speed built on incomplete information produces more ambiguity than awareness—and ambiguity, in these societies, is easily politicized.
4. Media and Development: A Role Beyond News Reporting: Development and communication literature emphasize that media in developing societies play a role beyond information transfer, including shaping public literacy, strengthening citizens’ capacity for judgment, and reducing vulnerability to rumours and manipulation. In this framework, a media outlet that is merely faster is not necessarily development-oriented. What helps development is making complex realities understandable, demystifying dominant narratives, and creating a shared standard for judgment—all of which are incompatible with extreme urgency.
5. Why this Model is Vital for Iran: In Iran, independent media faces not only a global media trust crisis but a double crisis of institutional distrust, political pressure, and intense polarization. In such a space, high speed increases vulnerability, error becomes a tool for suppression, and excitement replaces analysis.

In contrast, a media outlet that can—even at the cost of being seen less—build a sustainable standard of accuracy, pause, and transparency can become one of the few points of reliance for the public sphere. Such a media outlet doesn’t just provide news; it preserves the capacity for collective judgment—a prerequisite for political, social, and even economic development (Reporters Without Borders 2025a).

Counter-argument and Response: Is this model basically possible under structural censorship?

In facing the media situation in Iran, a serious and common counter-argument is raised: If media face institutional censorship, security pressure, and the dominance of state or semi-state capital; if large media lack editorial independence and political red lines are wide and variable, is speaking of revising news values and distancing from the ideology of urgency not a form of unrealistic optimism?

This critique accurately describes the conditions, but its conclusion is not necessarily correct. Academic literature on media in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian societies shows that structural limitations do not necessarily preclude professional reform; instead, they shape the type and starting point of reform (Kalathil 2020).

One analytical error in this critique is the hidden assumption that any meaningful change in the media must start in the most political and sensitive areas. Meanwhile, media development research in the Global South shows that a large part of public trust in the media is built not on coverage of hard politics, but on areas with the most daily contact with people’s lives. Journalism in science, health, environment, education, technology, daily economy, and sports are areas that, on the one hand, are less subject to direct censorship and, on the other hand, have the largest share in shaping the audience’s mental space (Semati 2007).

Development communication studies emphasize that media in these areas have a “cognitive infrastructure” role: helping the audience understand the world, not just hear about it. In such contexts, moving away from extreme urgency—for example, avoiding the rushed republication of pseudo-scientific claims, health rumours, or raw economic interpretations—does not violate political red lines, and is precisely where media trust is built or destroyed.

Another pessimistic critique rests on the premise that implementing such a model requires large media, massive capital, and powerful institutional structures—something that does not exist in Iran or in many Global South countries. But comparative research in the political economy of media and cultural studies provides a different picture. In many of these countries, media innovation has begun not within large media but rather from small projects, specialized press, and independent networks. These projects, often with limited scale but a clear professional identity, have established standards that later became the mental reference for audiences (Kalathil 2020).

In such a context, being small is not necessarily a weakness. Small and specialized media are less subject to constant algorithmic pressure, the expectation of urgency is lower, and the possibility of an editorial pause is higher. A media outlet that declares from the start, “we are not the fastest, but we are accurate,” does not enter a competition whose rules are set by platforms. Instead, it enters a competition for credibility and distinction—a competition that is actually more reachable for smaller players.

From the perspective of hegemony theories in cultural studies, this point is crucial. Media hegemony does not necessarily form from the top through large institutions; it is often built gradually and from the margins. When the audience encounters a pattern of media work in areas they trust—such as science or health—that pauses, accepts uncertainty, and explains rather than excites, this pattern becomes their standard for judgment. The audience then demands the same standard from other media, even in more political areas or cases that fall within the broad range of red lines in a society like Iran. In such a space, an editorial pause is not conservatism, but a survival technique (Reporters Without Borders 2025b).

Therefore, the claim of this article is not that all media in Iran can or should immediately and all at once move away from the logic of urgency. The claim is that this transition can begin in areas with the least political friction and the most significant cognitive impact; it can be tested at small, independent scales; and it can become the audience’s mental standard through professional and informal networks. Examples from Iran’s underground media networks demonstrate incremental successes in building trust through deliberate pacing (Reporters Without Borders 2025a). Furthermore, a 2025 study on social media suppression in authoritarian regimes argues that “delirium” tactics—rapid, chaotic responses—exacerbate vulnerabilities, supporting the case for measured journalism as a counter-strategy (Kermani 2025).

Disclaimer:
The Author used an AI agent (Grammarly) to check English spelling and grammar.

References

• Arendt, Hannah. 1982. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Bell, Emily, Taylor Owen, Peter D. Owen, and Smitha Khorana. 2017. The Platform Press: How Silicon Valley Reengineered Journalism. New York: Tow Center for Digital Journalism.
• “Boston ‘Witchhunt’ on Social Media & Bad Week for Old Guard.” 2013. The Guardian, April 22.
• “Deepfakes and the Crisis of Knowing.” 2025. UNESCO, October 27.
• Ferreira Caceres, M. M., et al. 2022. “The Impact of Misinformation on the COVID-19 Pandemic.” AIMS Public Health 9, no. 2.
• Galtung, Johan, and Mari Holmboe Ruge. 1965. “The Structure of Foreign News.” Journal of Peace Research 2, no. 1: 64-91.
• Gillespie, Tarleton. 2014. “The Relevance of Algorithms.” In Media Technologies, edited by Tarleton Gillespie, Pablo J. Boczkowski, and Kirsten A. Foot, 167-94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Translated by Thomas Burger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Hallin, Daniel C., and Paolo Mancini. 2004. Comparing Media Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kalathil, Shanthi. 2020. “The Evolution of Authoritarian Digital Influence: Grappling with the New Normal.” PRISM 9, no. 1: 4-19. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
• Kermani, Hossein. 2025. “The Art of Delirium: Social Media Suppression in Authoritarian Regimes.” Communication Theory 35, no. 4: 456-78.
• Newman, Nic, et al. 2025. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
• Reporters Without Borders. 2025a. “RSF World Press Freedom Index 2025: Iran.”
• Reporters Without Borders. 2025b. “Iran’s Journalists Are Still in Danger and Need Immediate Protection.” June 25.
• Sato, Yuji. 2024. “Disinformation and Regime Survival.” PMC.
• Sell, Tara Kirk, et al. 2017. “Media Messages and Perception of Risk for Ebola Virus Infection.” Emerging Infectious Diseases 23, no. 2: 354-57.
• Semati, Mehdi, ed. 2007. Media, Culture and Society in Iran: Living with Globalization and the Islamic State. London: Routledge.
• “Social Media Used to Spread, Create COVID-19 Falsehoods.” 2020. Harvard Gazette, May 8.
• Tufekci, Zeynep. 2017. Twitter and Tear Gas. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Wu, Tim. 2016. The Attention Merchants. New York: Knopf.
• Zelizer, Barbie. 1992. Covering the Body. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.