When Spotlight won two Academy awards at the recent award ceremony for best picture and original screenplay. Many saw it as sign of the power and recognition of professional investigative journalism, and how over 10 years on this is still important in this world of an ever-changing profession. While the subject matter is very important, the approach shown is of the traditional methods of journalism and that is why I want to show how in over year since Nightcrawler which was nominated for an Oscar, it shows the traditional values are still considered important but are becoming a rarity in this technological dependent world of journalism which has given an autonomy to people who 10 years prior would of struggled to break into the industry.

Nightcrawler released last year works as a wonderful commentary on the modern day exploitative nature of today’s journalism climate, while Spotlight shows us the old school type of journalism of chasing leads and collecting evidence the two films can be contrasted as the polar opposites of the traditional values of media and the ethics of the industry. While many articles since Spotlight won have announced it as an ode to those traditional news gathering values, many perceive that in this world of democratization of the industry, that Nightcrawler is where it is heading and it where it is currently.

Spotlight follows the real life story of the Boston globe writing team’s pursuit of the Catholic churches abuse of children over a number of decades. The film is classic in how it shows the ethical side of journalism, deadlines, extensions and also of gathering the evidence before publishing the story. It has received universal acclaim for critics and people in industry. But over 10 years since this story broke. It now is the rarity that stories like this are gathered and released in an industry which is losing it’s importance of this type of journalism to internet and citizen journalist’s. I hope that isn’t the case, I love the romantic view of investigative journalist, like a detective chasing down a story to shed light on an issue which we wouldn’t know about if wasn’t for there pursuit of a story. But unfortunately as the money grows tighter in the industry with the field so vast the money can’t be spared for stories like this as often as they should.

Nightcrawler is far different, you have one man who purchases a camera, a police scanner and listens and races to the scene before the competition arrives to shoot the scene and sell it on to a news network. The film is perfect demonstration of the new age of journalism, where if you have the drive and equipment you can become a journalist. The film is a clear satire of the contemporary news game. It shows the exploitative nature of journalism and the lack of moral it has. Spotlight shows us the team has values while the lead character in Nightcrawler has none but an ambition to be the best. Nightcrawler works better than Spotlight, in this age of citizen journalism. Spotlight feels to be a historical document to something from a different age, where the journalism industry was still a closed group that led to quality material, now we have a journalism world like Nightcrawler, although more immersive and quick to show us what’s happening, it has led to a culture of what I see as the quality is harder to find in the vast reaches of the internet age. Both films get there message out there and a traditionalist such as myself would prefer to have the quality journalism of Spotlight, but as attention spans decrease in a generation who looks down on a screen it is more likely that the world of Nightcrawler will become the norm while Spotlight could become a relic of what is still a morally grey industry.

The two films do leave questions. Is the age of traditional journalism a dying breed? Is the democratization of journalism a good thing? And also is journalism something thought or is it something that is born and refined? These questions are just a few that I have had when I thought about when doing this article.