The Changing Landscape of Journalism: A Conversation with Joanne Chianello

Veteran journalist and StrategyCorp Senior Advisor Joanne Chianello discusses the challenges facing modern journalism, the rise of misinformation, and how organizations can better engage with the media to ensure their perspectives are accurately represented. 

Joanne, you’ve been a journalist for decades. How has the media landscape changed in that time? 

One of the biggest changes is that there are fewer journalists covering more stories under greater time pressure. When I started as a print reporter, my job was to write one news story a day—sometimes more if I was covering earnings reports, but they were short. Then came websites, and suddenly, you were expected to file updates constantly, then rewrite for print, and also manage social media. 

Now, there’s little difference between print and broadcast reporters. Everyone is expected to do everything—live-tweet meetings, shoot videos, and write web stories — all while fact-checking and providing context. But journalism takes time. Explaining issues, tracking down sources, and verifying facts don’t happen instantly. 

At the same time, newsroom staffing has been slashed. My old paper, the Ottawa Citizen, has a fraction of the reporters it once did, yet they’re expected to produce more content across multiple platforms. The result is that there’s often less time for deep analysis and investigative work. 

That ties into another issue—many people now consume only the news that aligns with their views. How has the shift to digital affected public understanding? 

It’s a huge problem. In the past, when print media was dominant, readers would naturally come across different perspectives. Even if you weren’t actively seeking out a certain topic, you’d flip through a newspaper and absorb a broader range of viewpoints. 

Today, people curate their own news feeds, often reinforcing their existing beliefs. This happens at both extremes—the alt-left and alt-right live in separate echo chambers, each fueling their own narratives. Social media algorithms amplify this by prioritizing engagement over accuracy. 

The truth is rarely black and white. But when the middle ground gets lost, it becomes harder for people to engage with complex issues. 

Many people see the media as just a tool for promoting their message. Why should organizations engage with journalists beyond self-promotion? 

Some assume journalists have their own agenda, but in my experience, most are just trying to get the facts right. A journalist’s job is to ask: What are people saying? What are the actual facts? And what’s the other side of the story? 

That said, the constraints we talked about earlier mean reporters sometimes don’t have time to provide full context. That’s why engagement is so important. If organizations refuse to speak, they leave a vacuum that others will fill—often with speculation. 

I’ve seen it countless times. A company or government agency won’t comment on a controversial issue, and the result is a story that looks worse than it would have if they had participated. Silence implies guilt or fear. Even if you can’t control the final story, providing your side will always lead to a more balanced outcome. 

Some argue that media outlets frame stories for clicks. Have you seen pressure to create controversy for engagement? 

I can’t recall a single time when an editor told me to exaggerate a story for clicks. But there is an underlying truth: conflict is news. 

In journalism, good news is usually not news. If something is working as expected, it rarely makes headlines. That’s just how the industry functions. But where we’ve failed, in my view, is in explaining issues clearly. It’s not enough to report “this side says X, and that side says Y.” We need to provide context—Why is there pushback on this policy? What were its goals, and what has it actually achieved? 

That’s where journalists, policymakers, and even corporate leaders need to do better. Explaining complexity is difficult, but necessary. 

Given the realities of modern journalism, how can individuals or organizations work effectively with the media? 

The most important thing is to engage. Many organizations, especially in government and corporate sectors, default to saying nothing when faced with controversy. I get it—it feels safer. But it’s often the worst approach. 

Refusing to comment allows others to define the narrative. It also makes it easier for people to assign bad motives. If you don’t speak, someone else will speculate about your reasons, and that speculation may become the dominant story. 

Not all reporters are the same. Organizations should identify journalists who have a track record of fairness and credibility. Who has covered this issue before? Who understands the nuances? Seek those reporters out and engage with them. 

Another key point—media engagement isn’t just about providing quotes. Background conversations are invaluable. In the past, journalists could have off-the-record discussions with officials to understand policy changes. That’s becoming rare. I’ve had high-ranking officials tell me, “I’ll talk to you, but don’t tell the comms department, or I’ll get in trouble.” That’s a problem. We need a better flow of information, not more barriers. 

We’re seeing more misinformation, both in traditional media and through paid content. What concerns you most about the current environment? 

The biggest challenge is that falsehoods spread faster than facts. Technology has made it easier to manipulate reality—AI-generated videos, misleading statistics, and out-of-context quotes all contribute to the problem. 

Fact-checking takes time. I remember when my husband, also a journalist, spent three weeks verifying a single claim by a prime minister. By the time he confirmed it was inaccurate, the quote had already been widely accepted as fact. That’s the reality we’re dealing with—misinformation spreads instantly, but correcting the record is slow and difficult. 

Social media platforms are backing away from fact-checking, and that’s worrying. Some independent organizations are stepping in, but we need a bigger commitment from both the media industry and the public sector. Education is key. People need to learn how to evaluate information critically. 

It sounds like the relationship between journalists, organizations, and the public is at a crossroads. How do we move forward? 

It starts with trust and engagement. The fear of journalists is overblown. Most reporters are just trying to understand the truth. Organizations, whether public or private, need to see media engagement as a necessary part of the process, not just a risk to be avoided. 

For journalists, the challenge is to push for deeper analysis despite time constraints. We need to focus on explaining, not just reporting. 

Ultimately, the way forward requires effort from all sides—journalists, public figures, and readers alike. If we stop engaging, the gaps will be filled with misinformation. And that’s a far bigger problem than any single bad headline.