The transformation of labor in journalism: Monopoly capital, technology, and deskilling-1

The price of the devaluation of labor: low wages, extended working hours, and easier layoffs

Technological transformation in journalism is often explained through concepts of speed, efficiency, and innovation. However, this narrative often obscures fundamental questions such as whose interests technological developments serve and in whose hands the profit generated from production accumulates. Therefore, to understand the change occurring in journalism, it is necessary to look at the capital relations that develop and control digital technologies and determine the conditions of media production.

Harry Braverman’s labor process approach reveals that in capitalist production, technology is not merely a tool that increases productivity, but one that reshapes the organization of labor, the decision-making authority of the workforce, and control over production. The separation of the design of work from its execution, the fragmentation of tasks, the measurement of performance, and the standardization of professional skills are the fundamental mechanisms of this process. As discussed in Braverman’s Labor and Monopoly Capital, the centralization of control over production can proceed alongside the subordination of the workforce’s knowledge and experience to a production order under the control of capital. This approach is particularly important for journalism. This is because news is a labor-intensive product that requires research, verification, professional judgment, and a responsibility to the public interest. Despite this, journalism is increasingly evaluated by criteria such as content volume, publication speed, reach, and cost. Yet, while news production capacity grows, the journalist’s control over production narrows; technological progress occurs simultaneously with the decline of professional autonomy.

Technology: From productivity to control

Technology is not a neutral force that spontaneously creates social benefit, independent of capitalist production relations. Which technologies are developed, which jobs they are used in, and how the resulting increase in productivity is shared are determined by economic decisions. The same tools can be used to reduce the workload of the workforce, expand research opportunities, and improve production quality, or they can be used to do more work with fewer employees and lower the cost of labor.

In journalism, digital publishing systems, traffic metrics, and automation tools make it possible to monitor and standardize news production more closely. Indicators such as click counts and publication frequency can be used to measure employee performance. However, these indicators cannot measure the accuracy, social importance, or research depth of the news on their own. Replacing professional value with what is measurable can distance journalism from its public responsibility, especially in the platform business model, and make it dependent on commercial performance targets. Explaining this transformation solely through the internal operations of media organizations is also insufficient. Global technology companies shape the economic environment in which news circulates through digital advertising, search engines, social media platforms, and content distribution infrastructures. All media organizations, large or small, face pressures regarding revenue, access, and competition in this environment. Thus, news production is shaped within a broader institutional and technological power network than just the relationship between a journalist and an editor.

The concept of monopoly capital becomes important here. The concentration of economic power in specific companies can also affect market competition, production conditions, and the distribution of resources. When the weight of global technology companies in digital infrastructure and advertising markets is considered alongside the ownership and decision-making structures of large media groups, the independence of journalism ceases to be a matter of individual professional ethics. The question of who determines the economic conditions of news production turns directly into a question of professional autonomy.

Fragmentation of the division of labor and deskilling

One of the important concepts of labor process theory is deskilling. This concept does not mean the ignorance of the workforce; it refers to the narrowing of opportunities to use the knowledge and skills one possesses, to grasp the production process in its entirety, and to make decisions. The division of news production in journalism into small and standardized tasks is one dimension of this process. When a journalist is asked to produce more content in less time, the time allocated for research, source verification, and establishing context may decrease. Expertise acquired over years, professional judgment, and trust relationships built with sources can be devalued in the face of speed, clicks, and production volume. The journalist can be reduced from a professional who evaluates the social importance of news to a content producer who meets measurable production targets.

Digital automation and artificial intelligence do not eliminate this contradiction either. These tools can reduce the routine tasks of journalists and allow them to spend more time on research. However, it is also possible for the same tools to be used to shrink employment, standardize tasks, and increase the workload of the journalists remaining in the institution. Therefore, is technology being used to develop the journalist’s professional capacity, or is it becoming a tool to get the same work done with less labor? This distinction also points to why technological progress and social progress are not the same thing. Because the profit gained while productivity increases is not reflected in the workforce as better wages, shorter working hours, or stronger employment security. On the contrary, while production targets are raised, the pressure on the number of working journalists and working conditions increases. What is decisive here are the ownership and control relations that guide the use of technology.

In this direction, to understand the transformation of labor in journalism, it is necessary to look at technology, corporate structures, and labor relations together. The influence of global technology companies on digital infrastructure and distribution, the economic priorities of large media organizations, and the production pressures in newsrooms are not disconnected processes. These are parts of a broader economic structure that affects how news is produced, by what criteria it is evaluated, and to what extent the journalist has a say in this process. The fundamental contradiction within this structure is this: while the technological possibilities used to produce news expand, the decision-making authority and working conditions of the journalists who carry out this production do not develop to the same extent. Content may multiply; however, the time allocated for research may decrease. Production may accelerate; however, professional autonomy may weaken. The efficiency of companies may increase; however, journalists experiencing workload, insecurity, or job loss may pay the price for this increase.

As a result, centering journalism labor means revealing the invisible production process behind the news and the power relations of this process. The position of global technology companies in the media economy, the cost and employment preferences of large media organizations, the layoffs of journalists, and the erosion of labor rights will show how this transformation occurs in practice. Thus, the discussion can turn to the question of how technological and economic power reorganizes journalism labor and condemns journalists to insecure, low-wage, and intense working conditions. The next step is to test this structural critique with concrete examples.