Mainstream media’s relevance in today’s world has been dealt another blow by a new report on digital media.
The Digital News Report 2023 by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University covers 46 countries that account for more than half the world’s population. Sadly, New Zealand is not among them, but its findings are as applicable here as anywhere.
The bottom line: Many publishers are struggling to convince people that their news is worth paying attention to, let alone paying for.
The Reuters Institute has been tracking digital news audience behaviour in annual reports since 2012. Its first report (which surveyed five nations) noted mainstream media were investing heavily in ‘digital first’ strategies and the use of social media to access news content was on the rise.
The ensuing 11 years have seen that change accelerate but not in ways that news publishers and broadcasters would either anticipate or desire. The latest report provides few, in any, bright spots for them.
It shows that only one in five now prefer to start their news access on a news website or app and younger groups are showing an even weaker connection with news brands’ own output. They prefer ‘side-door routes’ such as social media, search, or mobile aggregators. Where they do access the news, it will be for ‘fun news’ or they will go straights to reader comments because they don’t trust what journalists and editors are serving up.
Almost half of those surveyed have no engagement with news at all.
Interest in news that spiked during the COVID pandemic has dissipated. Even the invasion of Ukraine, which has the potential to escalate to a Third World War, has failed to grab their attention.
Five years ago, in the five countries that have since posted the steepest falls in engagement, an average of 72 per cent expressed high interest in news. In the latest report that average has dropped to 44 per cent. Among those nations are the United States and the United Kingdom.
It gets worse: More than a third of those surveyed say they actively avoid news – to the extent that they turn off the radio when a news bulletin begins and scroll past news items on social media.
News avoidance is a complex topic. Not all avoiders are totally news averse, with around a third avoiding certain topics. The researchers have explored the reasons for selective avoidance and there are some messages for news producers, albeit mixed ones.
Certain news stories that are repeated excessively or a felt to be ‘emotionally draining’ are often passed over in favour of something more uplifting. Evidence that people are turning away from important subjects such as the war in Ukraine, national politics, and even climate change, pose challenges not only for media organisations but for the wellbeing of democratic society. Part of the challenge for media lies in addressing this disengagement while still satisfying engaged audiences that are very interested in those topics.
In a world beset by war, floods, division, cost-of-living crises, and apparent crime waves, it is perhaps unsurprising that the report finds a desire among audiences for something that is less injurious to their mental health. In Germany, for example, more than half the news avoiders said they were interested in positive news, almost half wanted stories that offered solutions and more than a third wanted stories that explained the news or were about people like themselves. This may, however, be just another way of saying they wanted news that was a bit less depressing and bit easier to understand.
However, it gets more nuanced: Some block out only perspectives they do not want to hear. Those on the right in the United States are five times more likely to actively avoid news about climate change than those on the left and three times more likely to avoid news about social justice issues such gender and race. Those on the left are more likely than those on the right to avoid news about crime or business and finance.
Nic Newman, a key researcher throughout the digital news project, says in this year’s report that there are no simple solutions to what is a multifaceted story of disconnection and low engagement in a high-choice digital environment.
“…but our data suggest that less sensationalist, less negative, and more explanatory approaches might help, especially with those who have low interest in news. Of course, what people say doesn’t always match what they do, and other research reminds us that in practice we are often drawn towards more negative and emotionally triggering news. This may be true in the moment, but over time it seems to be leaving many people empty and less satisfied, which may be undermining our connection with and trust in the news.”
Trust in the news is also impacted, according to the report, by criticism of media. Politicians are at the forefront of that attack. It cites the United States, where some leading politicians regularly deploy phrases like ‘fake news media’ to deflect accountability reporting and mobilise loyalists. Commentators on politically polarised cable TV outlets also routinely attack other news organisations with media-critical segments. Across the study there is a clear correlation between criticism of media and distrust in media.
“The bad-mouthing of journalists is not new, but attacks can now be amplified more quickly than ever before through a variety of digital and social channels in ways that are often closely co-ordinated, sometimes paid for, and lacking in transparency. Media criticism has become a key part of the political playbook, a way to deflect criticism and intimidate investigations – and these tactics often land on fertile ground.”
Clearly there are challenges but the issue with which media organisations will have the greatest difficulty is the clear trend by younger people away from their products and, indeed, from professional journalism itself.
Younger audiences are less likely to access news content, irrespective of the source. When they do, they won’t go to mainstream media brands, won’t trust journalists, won’t read democratically significant content, and won’t engage with well-established social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
Newman says in the report that ‘social natives’ who grew up in the age of social and messaging apps, are displaying “very different behaviours” than older age groups. For example, British 18-24 year olds in 2018 directly accessed news sites at the same rate as the rest of the population (around 50 per cent). However, while habits in the older groups have remained essentially unchanged, the rate among the younger age group has more than halved.
Their use of social media gateways (and their choices of platform) has meant they pay more attention to personalities, influencers, and fellow users than to journalists – even in conversations about the news. Their preference for platforms such as YouTube and TikTok demonstrate a shift toward video-led networks but, when they do access news, they prefer text reports. I surmise that this is because it is easier to view selectively than video or audio, but it creates even more challenges for news providers.
Some news publishers have begun to provide video content on YouTube and TikTok but the latter has created a dilemma because of (a) connection to the Chinese government and (b) the lack of oversight over misinformation and disinformation.
Over time the Reuters Institute has tracked shifts away from established social media platforms. The young are, for example, less engaged with Facebook and Twitter. Now, however, the trail is getting darker. This year’s report shows that younger people are moving to closed networks such as WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram.
A report by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue that was first published in English last year, found that far-right extremists and conspiracy theorists were expanding their infrastructures via Telegram. Earlier this year, Kacper Rękawek from the Counter Extremism Project stated the platform was used extensively by Russia to spread disinformation about the invasion of Ukraine.
Such closed networks can be dangerous places for young people and unlikely to be seen as acceptable territory for mainstream media to seek out this elusive part of their potential audience. That is problematic because Newman concludes that news media will have to reach out through other platforms and channels that they do not currently use.
Perhaps mindful that the report has been the harbinger of more bad. News than good, he ends his overview by saying:
“The war in Ukraine and the consequent economic shocks have encouraged publishers to further accelerate their transition to digital, embracing new business models, different types of storytelling, and new forms of distribution too. There will be many different paths but innovation, flexibility, and a relentless audience focus will be some of the key ingredients for success.”
When the 2024 report is published, we will see how innovative, flexible and focussed news media have been. And how relevant they have become.
You can access the 2023 report here: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2023