Let’s face it: a staggering number of people are tuning out the news on purpose. Recent reports say that in some countries, up to 60% of the public avoids the news entirely. That’s not just a sign of audience fatigue—it’s a flashing red light for anyone who still believes journalism is “essential.” (Hat tip to BoSacks, whose newsletter first put this article on my radar.)
The Practitioner’s Dilemma: “But How Do We Fix It?”
Having spent years working with and around newsrooms, I’ve had a front-row seat to the cycle: new tools, new platforms, fresh engagement strategies—all launched in the hope of winning back audiences. But let’s be honest: none of it really matters if the news itself doesn’t fit into people’s lives. The recent piece, What if news avoiders are right and you don’t need journalism? confronts this crisis head-on.
The authors argue that journalism has been missing the mark, producing for peers or vague notions of “the public” while ignoring how people actually use—or don’t use—what we publish. The JR3 project, with folks from the Knight Lab and News Alchemists, gathered a group to ask two deceptively simple questions:
- “What is the purpose of journalism?”
- “What should journalism enable us to feel, think, or do?”
When journalists answered honestly, their responses shifted from the usual talk of “watchdogs” and “guardians of truth.” Instead, people wanted journalism to help them feel better, take meaningful action, and connect with others. Not exactly the classic playbook—but maybe that’s the point.
But the Contrarian in Me Isn’t Satisfied
Now, here’s where my skeptical side kicks in. If we only create journalism to make people feel good or “empowered,” do we risk turning away from the hard truths that journalism is supposed to shine a light on? The world isn’t always a comfortable place. Sometimes, the news is negative because reality is negative.
Let’s not fool ourselves: there’s a danger in softening every edge or chasing popularity at the expense of uncomfortable, necessary stories. Journalism isn’t about customer service or crafting content that never offends. It’s about surfacing what matters—even when that means unsettling people, or challenging their views.
So Where’s the Sweet Spot?
For me, the real opportunity here isn’t about throwing out the old model for the shiny new one. It’s about balance. Yes, journalism should be more in tune with its audience: listen more, communicate with empathy, design stories that matter in the real world. But at the same time, it can’t become an echo chamber or a comfort zone.
The best journalism serves both the audience’s needs and the public interest—even when those don’t perfectly align. That tension? That’s where the real work happens.
Want to Go Deeper?
- How would a newsroom look if it truly put audience needs at the center, every day?
- Should every story be “empowering,” or do some just need to be true?
- How do we measure impact without reducing journalism to a popularity contest?
- Where does audience input strengthen journalism, and where does it dilute its mission?
Who Should Care?
If you work with media, study journalism, or have simply given up on the news because it feels irrelevant or exhausting—now’s the time to get involved. This isn’t just about keeping journalism alive as a business; it’s about making it matter to people again, even when that means making us all a little uncomfortable.
Memorable Takeaway:
“The pre-existing mental model for journalism falls apart when you center the audience.” But maybe it holds together best when you center both the audience—and the uncomfortable truth.