The digital age has vastly changed the way music is distributed, discovered, discussed, and consumed. Social media platforms such as Instagram, X and TikTok now allow for artists to communicate directly with audiences and self-promote, while streaming platforms such as YouTube, Spotify and Apple Music have made music discovery possible via algorithms.
Across several academic works we can see many issues have risen from the introduction of the digital age. The key themes discussed throughout are the gatekeeping power shift, the blurred boundaries between journalists and influencers, the dominance of platforms and algorithms and the changes in music journalism. This literature review will analyse these themes and the debates within, along with the existing gaps in the literature to help us understand how relevant music journalism is in the digital age.
The Decline of Journalistic Gatekeeping and Authority
One of the most common themes across the literature is: who really holds gatekeeping power in the digital age? Negus’ theoretical study, ‘From Creator to Data’ (2018), illustrates how streaming platforms such as Spotify now act as the primary gatekeepers due to algorithms. Platforms now view artists as data and their value is judged based on streams, likes, skips and playlist additions. Artists are defined by this data, rather than their artistic identity and this determines how much visibility they receive. If the algorithm controls what we see, discover and who gets visibility, then journalists would appear to have lost gatekeeping power as they no longer determine what is discovered. The only control a journalist would have is what they post on their own media platforms, and even this only reaches audiences based on the algorithm. In contrast to this, Järvekülg & Wikström’s qualitative research (2021) studied how people in local music scenes take on the role of journalist, influencer, and promoter simultaneously to create a ‘hybrid role’. By doing this they can have more engagement and still have some influence in what the audience discovers. In a way, they are using the algorithm to their advantage, to maintain gatekeeping power and authority. In Larsen’s study (2024), it was found that journalists were more emotional and subjective in writing their music reviews through content analysis. She discovered that this helped them maintain influence. The sources leave the hanging question: Have algorithms fully replaced journalists as gatekeepers or must journalists take on multiple roles to maintain any gatekeeping power?
Boundary Blurring: From Journalist to Influencer to Promoter
Are music journalists still a distinct professional group or has their role changed? This is a debate which constantly arises throughout the literature. Deuze’s ‘What is Journalism?’ article (2005) identifies that there are five ideological pillars of journalism. The pillars are public service, objectivity, autonomy, immediacy, and ethics. These are a set of values and beliefs that shape journalism so that it is distinguishable. Deuze argues that the digital age has disrupted these values by allowing non-professionals, like influencers, to pose as journalists. This results in less objectivity in the media, immediacy is weakened as we are always online and autonomy is reduced due to metrics and algorithms. Recent research from Bastin & Bert-Erboul (2024) where they carried out a content analysis of French journalists’ activities on the social media platform X, illustrated that the standards of objectivity were relaxed in their profiles, meaning, they come across as fans or influencers rather than critics. This aligns with Järvekulg & Wikstrom’s study (2021) where people in local music scenes take on hybrid roles to maintain their relevance. Similarly, Larsen’s research (2024) shows that music journalists have moved away from objectivity in their writing. These works show a clear shift from Deuze’s ‘ideological identity’ of journalists. The works reflect that the boundary between journalist, influencer and promoter is blurred. This raises the question, do journalists still abide by the set of values set out by Deuze or has their influencer-like behaviour allowed for the role of a music journalist to change to the point that they no longer need to abide by the same set of values?
Platforms and Algorithms for Music Discovery
A central debate across the literature is whether algorithms have replaced music journalists in shaping how audiences discover new music. We have already seen from Negus (2018) how streaming platforms have affected visibility through metrics like song streams, skips and likes. This allows algorithms to determine music discovery based on how often an artist is listened to, how many times their music is added to playlists and how many likes they receive. Quandt’s meta-analysis, ‘Euphoria, Disillusionment and Fear’ (2023), looks at 25 years of digital journalism and argues that platforms now control most of what audiences see, reducing the influence journalists once had. Instead of music discovery being shaped by critics, it is shaped by engagement metrics and what the platform decides is relevant. However, algorithms cannot offer any insight or critique, they can only influence visibility and discovery. According to Larsen’s research (2024), music journalists can still offer interpretation and credibility through their reviews which cannot be replaced by algorithms. This is backed up by Wunderlich’s empirical audience study, ‘Does Journalism Still Matter’ (2022), which found that while many people, particularly young people, preferred influencers in terms of entertainment and relatability, they still looked to journalists for facts and credibility, at least in terms of news journalism. This suggests that while algorithms may shape what we discover, they cannot fully replace journalists for critique and insight. Despite these findings, there is no research to suggest that this is applicable in terms of music journalism.
Changes in Music Journalism and Audience Perceptions
The final theme across the literature is whether music journalism has evolved and has this caused a decline in the profession or has the role simply changed due to the shift in audience preferences and the digital presence. Much of the literature suggests that the traditional structure of professional journalism has weakened. Bastin and Bert-Erboul’s research (2024) shows that journalists now behave more like influencers online to maintain visibility and engagement. Järvekülg and Wikström (2021) found that people in local music scenes took on hybrid roles, Larsen’s study (2024) demonstrating that journalists have become more subjective and emotional in their reviews both moving away from Deuze’s (2005) idea of objectivity and the traditional identity of journalism. Negus (2018) and Quandt (2023) both suggest that journalism is experiencing an identity crisis and music journalism is also affected. However, Forde’s historical research, ‘From polyglot to monoglot’ (2001), shows us that the journalistic commercialising, particularly in British music journalism, began in the late 1990’s, suggesting that the issues within the music journalism industry began long before the digital age. These studies would lead us to believe that there is a decline and that music journalists are almost unrecognisable online in how they are perceived by audiences. But does this truly mean a decline for the profession or is it simply an evolution? If music journalists now act as influencers, then they can connect better with audiences, which means they will expand their reach and relevance. As we have seen from Wunderlich’s research (2022), people still do look to journalists for factuality and credibility, but the question is, can the same be applied to music journalists? There is no research that analyses how music audiences perceive or engage with music journalists online, leaving a clear gap to be studied
Conclusion
Gaps in the Literature and the Relevance of Music Journalism
Although the literature highlights significant changes in music journalism, several gaps remain. As previously mentioned, there is no research on how music audiences themselves perceive music journalism. The literature relating to audience behaviours does not specifically analyse the audience’s online patterns relating to music journalism. It is not known if audiences engage more with artists’ social media platforms or do they seek out journalistic media platforms for their music discovery and knowledge. This means we do not know how music journalists are perceived, if audiences still seek them out or do they rely on influencers and the artists themselves for their music information. There is also very little research specific to the UK and Ireland, even though both have huge music cultures. Another gap is the lack of research comparing music journalism content with the artists’ content. We see how due to the digital age artists can essentially bypass music journalists and communicate directly with their audiences, but no study compares the two, and analyses how effective this method is for the artist or how audiences feel about it. In addition, no literature explores how music journalism functions on TikTok or other short-form video platforms, despite these having a massive impact on music discovery today. Lastly, the research also does not examine whether music journalism as a profession is still sustainable or how music journalists have adapted in the digital age. These gaps highlight the need to investigate whether music journalism still has any relevance in the digital age.
The literature suggests major shifts in music journalism, from new influencer-like behaviour to algorithm dominance. While journalists still offer value and credibility, it is unclear how music audiences perceive them or whether they remain relevant. Other significant gaps remain in the literature within the UK and Ireland and the TikTok-era which play a major role in music discovery. These gaps highlight the need for further research into the relevance of music journalism today.
Bibliography:
- Forde, E (2001). From polyglotism to branding. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 2(1), pp.23-43 doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/146488490100200108.
- Bastin, G and Bert-Erboul, C. (2024). Journalists’ authority and it’s bounded trade; Twitter, journalists and boundary work in contemporary France’s music scene. Journalism. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241255941.
- Järvekülg, M and Wikström, P. (2021). The emergence of promotional gatekeeping and converged local music professionals on social media. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 28(5), p.135485652110323. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211032376.
- Deuze, M. (2005) What Is journalism?: Professional Identity and Ideology of Journalists Reconsidered. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism, 6(4), pp.442-464. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884905056815.
- Negus, K. (2018). From creator to data: the post-record music industry and the digital conglomerates. Media, Culture & Society, [online] 41(3), pp.367-384. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718799395.
- Larsen, I.S. (2024). Getting emotional: Emotions and ‘journalistification’ in Norwegian music reviews, 1981-2022. Journalism. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241260196.
- Wunderlich, L., Hölig, S. and Hasebrink, U. (2022). Does Journalism Still Matter? The Role of Journalistic and non-Journalistic Sources in Young People’s News Related Practices. The International Journal of Press/ Politics, 27(3), p.194016122110725. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211072547.
- Quandt, T. (2023). Euphoria, disillusionment and fear: Twenty-five years of digital journalism (research). Journalism (London). doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231192789.