Can local media survive if this is its output?

TL:DR:

I want to make four points:

1. Local media is dying

2. Proper journalism is an endangered species

3. This will accelerate if ‘journalists’ create weak content

4. I hate long-form content made up of one-sentence paragraphs (like a series of idioms,  maxims or song titles)

To do this, I will link to a piece of editorial on our local newspaper website that made me genuinely angry. Like, genuinely. 

I will then ask GPT why the piece is poor journalism.

I will then ask GPT to write me a better one.

Summary of results: the criticism is scathing, the rewrite is great! (don’t take my word for it, see below).

Are you surprised? Seriously? Are you even slightly surprised that ChatGPT created a better article than the EDP?

My article, proper

A friend sent me this article on the EDP website about Traitors. I read it and it annoyed me for the following reasons:

1. Like all editorials, it felt very ‘me and my opinions’. Which is fine if you are someone we might care about - Julie Burchill, AA Gill, Will Self etc. Even then, those people have to work hard to make a valid point. Which they don’t always do. A point isn’t valid just because you’re you.

2. I HATE those one-sentence paragraphs that people use on LinkedIn.

3. Importantly, I just felt like the point he made was completely inaccurate. Its thesis is that it is harmful to society to have gameshows that make people distrust others. It also implies that Traitors is somehow new and worse than similar gameshows.

Example of the hysterical socio-psycho-babble in the article: “This is a profound undermining of the possibility of a functioning society. Society depends upon mutual trust through and through. The Traitors tries to get us to think as if we cannot trust anyone. That is how an extreme individualism would ‘work’: no-one would be able to trust anyone else. Everyone would be trying to second-guess everyone else all the time.”

So much in here: like a rapid-fire nonsense gun blasting opinions, facts and pseudo-facts and drawing poor parallels. It’s hard to parse the whole thing so we’re just left with an ‘impression’ of the point - even though it’s not quite accurate.

From the article	My 2-pence-worth
This is a profound undermining of the possibility of a functioning society.	Are you saying we don’t have a functioning society? You seem to suggest that a functioning society is something we have yet to achieve and that Traitors may hinder that.
Society depends upon mutual trust through and through.	Society depends on lots of things. And many societies function without trust ‘through and through’. There are many people, institutions and companies I don’t trust. Society still functions.
The Traitors tries to get us to think as if we cannot trust anyone.	How do you know what Traitors is ‘trying’ to do? And when you say ‘us’, it’s not trying to get ‘us’ to do anything, it’s getting contestants to do it. You know it’s not real life, right?
That is how an extreme individualism would ‘work’: no-one would be able to trust anyone else.	Poor construction, but I’ll let it pass. This is quite a leap. However, I would also disagree, and say that society functions by having checks and balances that mean we can work together when trust is a risk. For example, contracts, law enforcement and the concept of money.
Everyone would be trying to second-guess everyone else all the time.”	Is that not real life anyway? Certainly, it’s many aspects of it, from dating and friendships to business.

I couldn’t distil my fury into anything sensible, so I asked my good friend ChatGPT: “Why is this weak journalism?”

Edited result:

This piece is weak journalism for several reasons:

• Overly personal and subjective

• Lack of evidence or research

• Misrepresentation of the show’s concept

  • The article presents the show as uniquely destructive, ignoring the long history of social strategy games like Survivor or Big Brother, which involve deception and trust dynamics. The Traitors is not an anomaly, yet the author frames it as if it heralds societal collapse.

• Exaggeration and hyperbole

  • The language is extreme (“vile beyond belief,” “empire of the lie,” “violate the trust that makes families what they are”), which weakens the argument by making it seem hysterical rather than reasoned.

• Failure to consider audience agency

  • The article assumes viewers are passive consumers who absorb reality TV as a moral guide to life. There's no engagement with why audiences enjoy the show, what psychological dynamics make it compelling, or how contestants themselves reflect on their experiences.

• Disjointed argumentation

  • The piece shifts abruptly from The Traitors to broad societal decline, climate change, and the need for cooperation, without drawing a clear line between these issues. The sudden pitch for an alternative show feels tacked on rather than meaningfully developed.

• Unrealistic alternative proposal

• Weak ending

  • It feels like an abrupt, unconvincing plea rather than a strong concluding argument.

Overall, this is not journalism in the traditional sense - it’s an emotional rant dressed up as cultural critique, lacking the depth, balance, and supporting evidence that would make it a compelling argument.

Me-OW!

So I asked GPT to take its own critique into account and rewrite the article. Which do you think is better?

The Traitors: Just a Game or a Symptom of a Distrustful Society?

The BBC’s The Traitors has cemented itself as a cultural phenomenon, with a fourth series already in the works. But should we be celebrating its return? While undeniably gripping, the show raises concerns about the values it promotes - does it simply entertain, or does it normalize deception and erode trust in an era where cooperation is more critical than ever?

Strategy or Social Experiment?

Like Survivor and Big Brother, The Traitors thrives on manipulation. Contestants must outwit each other, with ‘traitors’ working in secret to eliminate the ‘faithfuls.’ However, unlike other reality shows, this game hinges entirely on psychological warfare - trust is the only resource, and its destruction is inevitable.

The Ethics of Entertainment

Critics argue that The Traitors mirrors society’s growing cynicism, rewarding deceit over integrity. Research suggests that frequent exposure to competitive reality TV can subtly influence real-world trust levels. However, psychologists note that audiences engage with these shows as escapism, not moral instruction.

Does It Reflect or Reinforce Distrust?

While The Traitors may not directly alter viewers' behaviour, it arguably reflects a world already struggling with misinformation and political division. Does rewarding deception in entertainment contribute to a broader culture of suspicion, or is it merely a symptom of existing societal trends?

A Case for Playfulness

Defenders see The Traitors as just a game - one requiring intelligence and adaptability, much like poker or business negotiations. The show also includes moments of genuine camaraderie, as contestants work together in challenges. This suggests that even in a game built on deceit, cooperation still has a role.

A New Direction for Reality TV?

Rather than rejecting The Traitors, could reality TV evolve to emphasize trust over treachery? Shows like The Great British Bake Off prove that competition doesn’t have to be ruthless. A format rewarding collaboration and ethical decision-making could offer an alternative to the backstabbing norm.

More Than Just a Game

The Traitors sparks debate because it sits at the intersection of entertainment and ethics. Whether it’s a harmless social strategy or a reflection of deepening distrust depends on how we engage with it. Perhaps the real challenge isn’t whether we watch, but how we apply its lessons to the world beyond the screen.

No wonder media and in particular local media is in dire straits. While I’m not a consumer of much local news, I know it matters to many people and makes a genuine difference to communities. 

Can local media compete with an endless stream of user-generated piffle on social media and high-quality AI-generated content?