Tag: #news

Posted on

“There’s definitely a backlash against noise”

Being the longtime lead author of the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report, Nic Newman has collected data on news consumption for more than a decade. By analyzing data and leading focus groups, he and his co-researchers have observed significant changes in behavior by young audiences: These days they overwhelmingly access news via social media and expect the consumption experience to be frictionless. I interviewed Nic for a research project on Gen Z and News by Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung.  

Nic, you have studied news consumption behaviour of different age groups for decades. What do media organizations need to know if they want to reach young people today? 

Nic Newman: People who grew up with social media show very different behaviours from those of previous generations. They want everything friction-free – ­and immediately –  and they want to consume content where they are. They don’t want to go to news websites or apps. And they want their consumption to be easy, entertaining, fun. That’s a big challenge because do you change your journalism to make it more entertaining and fun? Or do you just accept that they’re going to come less often to you because you’re not very entertaining and you’re not a lot of fun?

Is there such a thing as “the young audience” some in the media are talking about, or does your research reveal different young audiences? 

One of the defining features of this younger audience is just how varied their consumption is. We’ve done qualitative work where we’ve talked to individuals in different countries, and everyone has got different media habits. For example, it’s not true that all young people use TikTok for news. There are many who hate TikTok. We found people who had very clear routines, almost like those of newspaper readers. We saw them reading The Economist at exactly the same time every morning on their commute as they briefed themselves on the things they needed to know for work. You have the typical lifestyle effects when as you get older and go into a job, there’s information you need. Just young people’s way of accessing that information is going to be different, the unhappiness with any kind of friction applies to all. 

Presumably education and social status matter, too.

Education is always the biggest divider in terms of how interested people are in news. The more interested people are in news, the more likely they are to build a relationship with a brand or with an individual. That’s the other big trend: that many young people prefer to access news through an individual they trust. 

You did a major report on creators for the Reuters Institute. What were your key findings?

It varies by country. We all know the politically polarizing creators in the US, the Joe Rogan types. There are a lot less of these in Europe. There you see more of those educator types like MrWissen2go in Germany. In explanatory journalism creators are clearly filling a gap that traditional media does not fill. The third area is the specialists who are building really deep, authentic relationships in a particular subject area. This also threatens traditional media companies, because these individuals have an incredibly low cost base. Many of them came from mainstream media but now think it’s better to operate on their own. 

Some data shows we have reached peak social media – now that even the most backwards media brands have realized they need to give it a go. 

There’s definitely a backlash against noise. But it might be impossible to even talk about social media anymore. Social media used to be social: about what your friends were doing. But that has been declining. In the past two to three years, it has developed from content that came from someone you knew to content that is essentially driven popularity using AI driven algorithms. A lot of that is fuelled by video. People aren’t getting bored with YouTube or TikTok, that’s growing. 

What does that mean for the media industry? 

One of the implications is the competition for attention within the new discovery mechanisms. The platforms are setting themselves up as creator friendly, they want to attract the best content that’s going to keep people’s attention. And again, they find that although professional media is part of that, people are paying more attention to non-professional media, to authentic personalities. Younger people are paying a lot of attention to people who look like them. Traditional media are struggling to behave like creators, because their sometimes less objective approach doesn’t fit with journalistic norms. The other growth area is through AI. Young people are more likely to access news and information through AI, because it’s friction free, quick, easy, and gives them what they want, it is personalized. 

What would you recommend editors and media organizations to do in this situation where both is quite foreign to them: creators and AI-based discovery?

Most media companies are thinking about investing more in video, particularly in vertical video that builds an authentic trust relationship. You’ve seen the New York Times and a range of other media companies putting vertical video on their front pages, trying to bolster the visibility of their own personalities and journalists to the extent that these are looking directly at you in the camera, building that sort of authentic direct relationship. They’re trying to copy a few creator techniques. Other strategies are to partner with creators or to co-opt them and bring them on staff. A whole list of companies have done that, in the UK for example the Daily Mailand the Independent. The third possibility is to engage with existing creators in particular fields, for example in investigations to help with distribution or content creation

What are the most common mistakes that you observe in newsrooms – apart from not doing anything for young audiences?

Probably the biggest mistake is an old newsroom trying to be down with the kids. Some older television anchors have done very well on TikTok, but in general, young people do not want you to dumb down. They want you to maintain your credibility and institutional authority. Don’t not cover politics or other important subjects because young people are spending less time on these issues. Try and make it accessible. Think hard about the formats you’re using. This works for older people as well. The other common mistake is to do a brand for young people, unless you do it to learn something from it. There have been very few cases where that has been successful. 

Why is that? Some young editors in large media companies have put quite some effort into developing those brands. 

Because in most of those cases you’re trying to get young people to do something they don’t want to do, which is come directly to an app or to a website. And if it’s a brand that only works in social media, you might as well build a personal brand or try and amplify the message of the existing brand rather than trying to create a new one. It is different if you are a digital first brand like Zetland in Denmark where you have a very clear audience in mind to begin with. 

What is their secret sauce?

One important aspect of this is representation. Young people struggle with traditional brands because they don’t feel that the journalists and the newsrooms really understand what they’re interested in – both in terms of the agenda and in the way they like to consume media. For newsrooms that are primarily employing people age 45 and older, it’s very hard to speak authentically to a younger audience. Zetland’s founders were of that generation.

One of their recipes for success seems to have been their audio first concept. Because the data shows that young people like long stories – when they can listen to them. 

That’s another myth about young people: that they’re not interested in linear, they’re not interested in long form. Obviously, they binge on long television series, they binge on podcasts. But the kinds of podcasts they’re listening to are an accessible, easy mix of entertainment and information. There’s a lot of humour involved. And again, that works well with older people, too. Interestingly, podcast is becoming video. What we found in our research for the latest Digital News Report is that younger people watch podcast videos because they want to get closer to the host. Whereas older people say, it’s all about audio. And then you’ve got this third audience, which is people who just come across the podcast brands as short form video clips on TikTok and Instagram. So, podcasts are becoming kind of multi-platform brands with different appeal to younger and older people, depending on the platforms that are being used. 

Listening to you I get this feeling that about two thirds of today’s newsroom inhabitants are useless species because all they’ve ever wanted to do is write long stories. 

The other side of that coin is that the majority of traditional news organizations’ audiences are older and that they’re not dying anytime soon. Newsrooms will continue to serve those people, which is one of the things which makes it hard for them to change: Most of the revenue comes from older people. If they super serve young people, they’re likely to annoy these older groups. This is where personalization could come in: showing people who like these formats more of the video and showing people who don’t like them less of the video. When targeting younger audiences, there’s a bit around the news agenda, there’s a bit around formats, and there’s a bit around tone.

What about young people and news has surprised you most in all your research? 

That there is so much diversity in interests. Let’s take Sudan. That’s a country that gets very little mainstream media coverage, but on Instagram and TikTok there’s quite a lot of news about it, because it’s a completely horrific situation. You get a lot of surprises like that which challenge some of those myths that young people aren’t interested in anything outside their backyard or their friendship group.

Your creator report says that across the 24 countries you looked at, 85 percent of the creators were male. That looks like the opposite of increasing diversity. 

Yes, it is ironic that  that this new space that is full of creators is actually less diverse in some respects. That tells us quite a lot about who wants to get in front of the microphone. Political commentary is the one that is most dominated by men talking into their big microphones to other men, mainly consumed by older people. Then you’ve got the explanatory stuff, which is mainly created by young people and consumed by young people. And then there’s a whole load of more news adjacent creators who are in fashion or food and that’s much more gender mixed. There are some exceptions though. The Philippines has almost gender parity.

This interview was conducted as part the study “A miss is as good as a mile: A qualitative study on Gen Z and journalism in Austria, featuring perspectives from users, media professionals, and international experts.”  You can find more information and the full study here. The study was commissioned by Zentrum für Medienwissen of the Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung, Co-Author was Jana Koch. The interview was published in full length here. 
Posted on

“Everyone should be required to do something to innovate every year”

For our study on Gen Z and news consumption for Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung I interviewed the independent news creator Sophia Smith Galer. Sophia used to work for the BBC and Vox Media before going independent, she doesn’t only do journalism herself but also helps other journalists getting better at publishing on platforms like TikTok where younger audiences tend to be. Among other things, she serves on the Future Board of Mediahuis.  

Sophia, what do media organizations need to know if they want to reach young people today? 

Sophia Smith Galer: They need to understand young people’s viewing habits and reading habits and where they feel overserved and underserved. 

Is there something like “the younger audience”, or how would you segment it? 

Young people are not one monolith. Their habits vary depending on every demographic mix. Proper audience needs research would reveal those differences in detail. But it takes a lot of time of being on these platforms to figure out how to give audiences what they want. For example, young men can be reached more easily on YouTube, female audiences on Instagram. But ever since I left my BBC job, I never had the remit of reaching young people. My remit is just that I reach people.

Some media brands have experienced that: If they aim to reach young people, they discover they reach broader audiences.  

A lot of people will say that if they grow on platforms associated with young audiences like TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram, they will find growth, discoverability and awareness rising amongst audience far older. If you grow, you grow.

You worked for the BBC and Vice and turned to be an independent journalist creator in 2023. What do you know about the audiences you are reaching? 

To take Instagram where I’m the most active, my audiences are primarily in the 25 to 34 age bracket. That makes sense: I am 31 years old, a lot of creators tend to reach their own age group. But there are factors beyond one’s control. I’m British, but Americans are my biggest audience on Instagram, even though I spent just a few weeks of my life in America. So, it’s a great tool for discoverability across borders. 

You left the BBC in 2021 to get more creative freedom. These days you are advising Belgium-based Mediahuis on their Future Insights Board. What do you think about the ability of legacy media to advance with younger audiences?

A lot of the newsrooms that are making high-quality social media content on places like Instagram and TikTok are halfway there. That is if they have prioritized vertical video which is the growth engine right now. The big but is that publisher accounts simply do not have the reach or appeal that individual accounts have on these platforms. Audiences are drawn to influential expert individuals, and I think that more journalists should be occupying those roles and disseminating information themselves. 

So, it is key for legacy organizations to empower their individual journalists?

Definitely. Many journalists have to rely on a small, very underresourced video team in their newsroom that is in charge of the newsroom’s entire digital presence. That’s simply not how social media works. Social media is a peer-to-peer network of individuals. 

Do you see examples of organizations doing a good job at this?

In the marketing and commercial worlds, you’re seeing companies taking advantage of concepts like EGC – employee-generated content. Some offer staff incentives and training to be better ambassadors of their work. And to do that safely and freely and have fun with it and get benefits from it, staff need to have the freedom to post without being micromanaged. In fact, journalists could be very good at this because they are used to standing up for their work. A print journalist may appear on broadcast media to represent their work, for example. This is not different from representing your work on a platform like TikTok.

But even that is challenging for many journalists who have been trained to keep a low profile as individuals and disappear behind their reporting and their brand. 

A lot of journalists I have trained or surveyed say they don’t have the video skills, and they don’t have the time. But if they have too many obstacles to become ambassadors of their work, they will remain invisible online. And if they are invisible, their work will be invisible. That’s what really worries me, even more because a lot of the information on Instagram and TikTok is not good. It could really be improved if we had better storytellers there.

You just published a report on a sample of 526 UK journalists, revealing that the majority lacks a strong following on the platforms that matter with the public. They hang out among themselves on X when they could be reaching audiences on Insta, TikTok and YouTube. Is that because they don’t want to or because they don’t get the opportunity by their publishers? 

There are two groups: those who want to do this but haven’t been able to and those who really don’t want to do this. They do not think it is the job of a journalist today to amplify their work on social media. Obviously, I disagree with that personally. But I do come from a public service journalism background where it was really drummed into me that if I do journalism, the whole point is that as many people as physically possible can see it. If you’re not a public service journalist, maybe you can afford to not want to upskill yourself to put your journalism on social media.

Is it also because many journalists still expect people to come to them rather than the other way round?

They may possess quite hierarchical views of the newsroom. In the UK, we’re still seeing an environment where the output of the social media teams may not be seen as prestigious as the output of other teams. We need to stop talking about vertical video as innovation and start talking about it as platform risk mitigation. We need to make sure that we remain visible in an increasingly fragmenting online space where video is getting more important and where a lot of us are digitally homeless following the exodus from X.

What would you advise editors-in-chief to do? 

Newsrooms get the best results if they work with reporter talent who do original, distinctive journalism that is connected to the signature content of the newsroom and wins paying subscribers. This is a way to really amplify not only what you stand for, what you write or film or publish about, but what’s why you’re worth being paid. Identifying that talent and nurturing them and keeping hold of them is its own art, but there are plenty of frameworks from existing journalism structures to rely on. It isn’t reinventing the wheel, but it does take a bit of digital ambition and newsroom culture shift around what it means to be a reporter. It is not just you publish the story and that’s that, and you have nothing to do with the impact or discourse that is created around it. 

What are the major mistakes you have been observing in the media industry?

If a newsroom is making demands, but has not bothered to invest in resources and training for the staff to meet them. Also, in many newsrooms pioneering new formats or taking an interest in the sustainability of the organization does not figure in somebody’s career progression. What’s needed is a cultural shift: The entire workforce should have a vested interest in the future of the company that they’re working for. Everyone should be required to do something to innovate every year. But many senior journalists can’t see the crisis I can see because I am so chronically online. And for junior staff, it can be quite hard to translate that to those who have the power and decision-making abilities. Senior decision makers must become better listeners. This would retain junior staff because they would feel they were having a greater impact on the company’s future. Also, there has always been this church and state separation in newsrooms between commercial and editorial. But there is not a single content creator who divides church and state. They all have to be very editorially and commercially minded.

Is there anything on the content and format sides that could be improved?

 At the moment we’re seeing a lot of high-quality vertical video explainers that look identical to each other. I don’t think it’s sustainable because ultimately, you’re not building communities around your work. It’s within those communities that you’re going to do those important conversions that everyone in the business side of your newsroom is desperate to win over.

You have been very successful as a female creator. But there is a huge gender gap in the creator economy. In a study published by the Reuters Institute, 83 percent of the creators that were mentioned by those surveyed were male. One major reason seems to be that women shy away from online harassment – they are way more exposed to it than men.

That worries me, too. In the data set of my study, the highest profile women are individuals who have big jobs in TV. They’ve had strong backing from the traditional television industry and were famous pre-social media, they entered the race with a big following. As social media platforms may have become increasingly toxic or dangerous experiences, these women have a lot of institutional power and real-life resources and money that can help keep them safe. Whereas it’s the people who are yet to acquire these jobs and sort of fame who have to navigate this toxic environment without these resources. Many will not be able to make it because of how awful an experience they’re going to have online. 

You have embraced the AI age decisively by creating the Sophiana App that helps journalists to get proficient on TikTok. Could you explain your thinking behind this?

From the work I’ve done, I identified a clear need for a tool that could help journalists make vertical video more quickly and at a higher quality. And we know from research that news audiences are happier with journalists using AI tools if it keeps the human in the loop. Sophiana helps translate the written work into a TikTok friendly script that the journalist would have otherwise not been able to do at all or to the quality I expect. It includes a teleprompter so they can film it quickly. The tool centres the journalists’ work, helps them translate it, amplify it, keeping them front and centre and in total editorial control.

How do you think the AI environment will shape the way we all consume news? 

The most pressing change is the decline in website traffic. People are getting answers from speaking to AI agents, but where will the newsroom stand to make money in that new environment? I don’t see a lot of people who are worried about AI misinformation and AI slop. Audiences are really annoyed about all of that, that’s why they are on our side already. A bigger problem is audiences knowing who we are and how to support creative industries in this time of flux. They’re not going to know about it unless we talk to them about it.  

Data suggests social media usage peaked in 2022 and has been declining. Is this just a post-pandemic effect, or could there be more to it?

I think a lot of social media platforms have become less pleasant to use because of how much advertising is forced on people and how changes to what appears on a feed can put you off spending loads of time on it. I agree that there’s going to be a dip because people want to get back to real life. But I don’t think a decline in social media use is going to be an issue we have to deal with in the next three years minimum. 

This interview was conducted as part the study “A miss is as good as a mile: A qualitative study on Gen Z and journalism in Austria, featuring perspectives from users, media professionals, and international experts.”  You can find more information and the full study here. The study was commissioned by Zentrum für Medienwissen der Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung, Co-Author was Jana Koch. The interview was published here.

Posted on

“Don’t try to be cool, because that is not your role”

For our study on Gen Z and news I interviewed Pierre Caulliez who has been leading the News Creator Exchange at WAN-IFRA and founded the Consultancy Yoof in London. By the time of our talk, Pierre was 23 years old, thus a pretty credible source on young people’s news consumption behavior. 

Pierre, what do media organizations need to know if they want to reach young people today? 

Pierre Caulliez: They need to know that it is a long-term game. It’s the wrong mindset to come in and say, ‘I want to see direct returns’. It is an investment into the future. It is showing the brand and the mission over the long run. 

Do you see ways to monetize young people with media products or experiences at all, or shouldn’t publishers even be trying?

18-year-olds didn’t pay for news 50 years ago and they won’t pay for it today either. I’m convinced that a portion of young people will pay for news once they get in a financial position and a stage in their lives where they need the news to understand the world and the decisions they make. Now with AI the role of journalism is more important than ever. And young people will see it with misinformation, with the fact that there is an infinite amount of content. News brands have a role as trusted sources of information, everyone will rely on checking whether an information is accurate. 

So, today’s young people are not really that different from previous young generations?

The main difference is that when you look at those who grew up in the 2000s as I did, there was not a lot of media choice. They grew up with Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, these big outlets that decided what the culture was. Now, there is a fragmentation of media. Everyone can become a news channel; everyone can do a TikTok. We are moving into a niche world where people consume niche content instead of mainstream content. These niches can be anything: certain sports or politics or a certain cinematic universe, for example the Marvel niche, which is seeing amazing loyalty. That drives the way they consume news and content and the loyalty they bring. 

But legacy media’s mission is to foster the democratic debate, not to cater to niche interests. 

The key to re-engage younger audiences around media is to recreate a relationship with them. Many young people don’t even know that these legacy media exist. If you ask five under 25s in the streets of London today: ‘give me five names of publishers’, I’m pretty sure they will struggle after number two or three.

Media managers often say ‘young people don’t read our stuff because they have such a short attention span’. Is that just an excuse?

Everyone now has a shorter attention span, because with all the content we are exposed to, we have less time to decide what’s relevant. But people are more likely to spend time with the topics that interest them most. If they were super interested in Formula One, they would listen to a podcast of two hours. It is about grabbing their attention and convincing them that something is relevant for them.

You have a new role with WAN-IFRA, building and leading the News Creator Exchange. Have you set yourself a goal?

We’re seeing more and more non-traditional news outlets that started out as creators and are now doing a very strong job at engaging young audiences. My mission with the News Creator Exchange is to bring these creators into the WAN-IFRA ecosystem and put them on an equal footing with editors and newsrooms. The aim is to create a shared space where editors and creators can sit together, compare how they work, learn from each other, and explore new ways of doing news storytelling. We’ll do that through different formats, workshops, exchanges, and collaborative sessions, and we have onboarded 150 news creators and digital-first outlets thanks to the support of the Google News Gap Project.

Imagine you have 15 minutes with a room full of legacy editors-in-chief. What would be your advice?

The biggest advice is: listen to your audience. Get these young users around the table, listen to them and to what they have to say about your brand. What do they watch, what do they find relevant? How do they find out about you? All this is important to know, not just to assume.

Frankly, it’s been a decade that pretty much every advisor I know has been telling newsrooms to listen to their audiences, and it doesn’t seem to happen. 

To be honest, I don’t understand why. Newsrooms should create open days where they make their journalists meet the audience, for example. It’s not that difficult. My second recommendation would be to build a human relationship with users. For example, 30, 40 years ago, there were some limits to how much we knew of celebrities. Now, because of how much they share about themselves, we know so much about their lifestyles. People identify with them because they share their vulnerabilities, they’re authentic. Some journalists are good at recreating this link and showing themselves as humans in the age of AI. And the third big advice is: do not try to be cool because that’s not your role. Some newsrooms are trying this, and I think it’s a disaster because that’s not their job to be making memes or being funny. Young people have thousands or millions of memes already on TikTok, so why would they go to this media for it? You got to keep your values straight. The formats you’re doing could adapt, but the journalism you do shouldn’t change. 

You are 23 years old yourself, but is there anything that surprises you when observing your generation consuming media?

I’m talking here as a pure Gen Z, not as a consultant, but I don’t see many people using Google anymore. It’s now about chatting with ChatGPT about anything, some do it two or three hours per day. I have a friend who is applying for jobs, and he recorded all his interviews to make him better at it. The new tools that AI offers will change the way we consume information. And one thing that scares me a lot is the trust we put into these tools.

What about social media? Data says we reached peak social media consumption in 2022. 

There is obviously a fatigue of consuming social media, consuming TikTok, but it’s not going to change the impact. Some young people I know are quite scared of how they consume these sorts of media for hours without even noticing. A lot of people are trying to quit social media, but they don’t manage because of the way these media are designed, they give us so much dopamine. 

Are there any missing conversations around young people and media consumption?

We are not discussing the event side of things enough. Events offer quite a good opportunity to familiarize young people with your brand. For example, a news brand in France sponsors a student congress that helps students to choose their course of study. When a person goes to a specific event, they are ten times more likely to remember the brand than if they were just seeing YouTube shorts of the same brand for 10 seconds. It creates value to build connections with different types of events across the life span of a person.

This interview was conducted as part the study “A miss is as good as a mile: A qualitative study on Gen Z and journalism in Austria, featuring perspectives from users, media professionals, and international experts.”  You can find more information and the full study here. The study was commissioned by Zentrum für Medienwissen der Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung, Co-Author was Jana Koch. The interview was published here.

Posted on

Gen Z and News: How to engage young audiences with journalism – advice from Austria and the world

There are tons of assumptions out there about young people and news consumption – and many of them are NOT backed by evidence. In fact, young people trust media brands, if certain conditions are met. They are interested in news and have a long attention span, if something matters to them and they feel their needs matter to news brands. They are not only on TikTok, and they might trust creators more at times, but that happens often when regular media fail them.

Jana Koch of Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung and I have researched the topic for many month and led dozens of qualitative interviews. Jana spoke to young people and Austrian editors, I interviewed international experts. The result was a 150-page-report: “Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei”. You can read the executive summary in English here.  Furthermore, I will publish the expert interviews here separately one by one (stay tuned).  You can download the complete report in German (an English version is in the making).  

 

Posted on

Nieman Lab Prediction 2026: Editors will start tackling the 5% challenge – and it won’t be fun (at first)

The advances of generative AI have put those in charge of newsrooms on an emotional rollercoaster. While 2023 and 2024 were the years of reckless experimentation (“Hey, look what these models can do!”), in 2025, AI realism took over. Great ideas turned out to be hard to implement, costly, or solutions looking for problems (“Nice, but it’s not serving anyone!”). Putting strategy back into AI development became key.

This is why 2026 is likely to become the dip of the ride. Because now, the strategy needs to be filled with life. And while editors at media conferences widely agree that AI will force newsrooms to focus on unique, original journalism and experiences that create value for their audiences and deepen customer connections, some detailed data analysis will make many of them feel queasy. Because the result will often be not that different from what an editor recently revealed at an industry gathering: Only 5% of a subset of his brand’s content was original journalism. The subtext was clear, of course: The rest could have been done by an AI. Welcome to the 5% challenge.

Expect many newsroom leaders to become busy next year figuring out what exactly makes their brand stand out in the emerging sea of content. And even harder: finding a way to scale the 5% (or maybe 20%) to proportions that guarantee their journalism’s survival. Because let’s face it, the era of the web has been the age of copy-and-paste journalism. And this is exactly what (once) younger journalists have been raised to do in the past 20 years or so. Sitting behind the screen all day and competing for reach was the job. The word “reporting” — picking up stories from the streets by looking at things and talking to people, face-to-face or on the phone — was converted into the phrase “reporting on the ground,” which sounded as if leaving the comfort of the office was an award-worthy niche discipline.

For leaders, doing all of this will involve conveying some hard truths to many newsroom inhabitants: telling them that their daily work has to change — and fast. Converting agency copy into a snappy story — the AI has already done it. Doing some service journalism because customers safely clicked on it — the chatbot will have been there already. Upselling subscriptions with branded recipes — maybe, as long as ChatGPT still spoils the dish with hallucinations. Unfortunately, “stop doing” is among the hardest disciplines for any kind of enterprise. Because other than running exciting experiments and excelling in the innovation department, stopping routines and common practices is neither sexy nor does it bring about career advantages. To the contrary, it means robbing people of things they love to do, or are at least proficient in. And it takes away the status and power that was attached to practicing them. Speaking of rollercoasters, there will be some uncomfortable circles at the bottom of this.

There are four areas where media brands can scale the human-made part of their journalism

But here comes the uplifting part: Focusing one’s journalism on “the real thing” (again) will be fun — for seasoned hacks and creator-type newcomers alike. And it can also help bridge the newsroom generation gap. While younger colleagues can learn from the more experienced ones research and source-building skills for access and investigations (including persistence and picking up a phone), older ones will profit from everything that the Insta-and-Spotify generation can bring to the desk, like video, podcasting, data research, and brand-building competencies.

There are four areas in particular where media brands can scale the human-made part of their journalism: First, with strong personal brands who will play out their authenticity and humanness to connect with audiences (plenty has been published about news creators in 2025). Second, with deep expertise in niche areas that AI-generated content cannot provide because it is prone to converge around the average. Third, with investigations that make news consumers proud of “their” news brand. And fourth, with strong local journalism that is deeply rooted in its communities — in most cases, AI won’t go there. Creators who understand their formats and their stuff can figure in all of these areas, of course.

The sizable rest can safely be left to the workings of AI, where agents will do a much faster, more targeted, and personalized job than humans could have done, provided humans do the necessary prep work for accuracy. Markus Franz, chief technology officer of Munich-based Ippen Group, predicts that with agentic AI, the current “human in the loop” principle will be replaced with a “human on the loop” approach in the future that helps with scalability.

In all of these scenarios, journalism jobs will move into two quite different directions. One set of roles will lean toward the more techie side. They will need to shape the new AI-mediated world of journalism, ensure scalability that adheres to the quality standards of journalism, and build compelling products for customers that make them connect directly with the brand. On the other side, we will see the new “old-style” journalists who do everything to solicit exclusive information and/or establish themselves as personal brands. Talent will most likely have to pick sides early on, and it is essential that journalism education reflects and fosters this. As soon as everyone has settled into their new seats, the rollercoaster can go on its next climb.

This prediction was published with Harvard University’s Nieman Lab on December 16, 2025.

 

Posted on

Let’s talk more about what quality journalism truly means!

As a rapporteur for Wan-Ifra’s World News Media Congress 2025 in Krakow and member of their Expert Panel, Alexandra had the honor of sharing her key insights on stage in the final wrap-up, together with co-experts Jeremy Clifford (UK) and Chris Janz (AUS). This is the written-up version:

🏄 It’s about strategy: No matter which technology or platform you are using, it won’t help you when you don’t know your mission and the needs of your audiences. And when you have a strategy, follow it – and cut down on the rest.

🏄 It’s about direct and loyal relationships to users and customers: Give people more reasons to go directly on your site and engage, to download your app, to subscribe to your products, to attend your events. In an AI mediated environment when referrals from search decline and your brand will further lose visibility, this is the only way to make your business sustainable.

🏄 It’s about brand: Trust is rooted in brands. This could be personal brands or organizational brands. Double down on clarifying and delivering the value proposition of your brand. Young people tend to be less loyal or even brand agnostic. Put particularly effort in attracting and retaining the next generations of users by understanding their needs.

🏄 It’s about emotion: In a sea of choices, signals that trigger emotional responses matter. Feeling connected is a human need. When so much of life is dominated by technology, people are even more likely to look for authenticity. Particularly young people want to be listened to, not talked down to.

🏄 It’s about place: In a globalized, sometimes confusing world, many people are looking for meaning and human connection in their communities. Much of political polarization is fueled by the rural-urban divide: people from outside the political centres often feel not represented in public debates and policy making. There is potential for excellent storytelling away from where power crowds. Local journalism matters.

🏄 It’s about journalism: In an age when content can be produced at scale by AI, we need to move journalism up the value chain, as SVT’s Director General Anne Lagercrantz put it in a recent interview. And every news organization needs to explore and talk more about what that means for them. We don’t talk about what we mean by quality journalism nearly enough.
 

Posted on

Anne Lagercrantz, SVT: “Journalism has to move up the value chain”

Anne Lagercrantz is the Director General of SVT Swedish Television. Alexandra talked to her about how generative AI has created more value for audiences, SVTs network of super users, and what will make journalism unique as opposed to automated content generation. 

Anne, many in the industry have high hopes that AI can do a lot to improve journalism, for example by making it more inclusive and appealing to broader audiences. Looking at SVT, do you see evidence for this?  

I can see some evidence in the creative workflows. We just won an award for our Verify Desk, which uses face recognition and geo positioning for verification.  

Then, of course, we provide automated subtitles and AI-driven content recommendations. In investigative journalism, we use synthetic voices to ensure anonymity.  

I don’t think we reach a broader audience. But it’s really being inclusive and engaging. 

In our interview for the 2024 report, you said AI hadn’t been transformative yet for SVT. What about one year later? 

We’re one step further towards the transformative. For example, when I look at kids’ content, we now use text to video tools that are good enough for real productions. We used AI tools to develop games then we built a whole show around it.  

So, we have transformative use cases but it hasn’t transformed our company yet.  

What would your vision be? 

Our vision is to use AI tools to create more value for the audience and to be more effective.  

However – and I hear this a lot from the industry – we’re increasing individual efficiency and creativity, but we’re not saving any money. Right now, everything is more expensive.  

Opinions are split on AI and creativity. Some say that the tools help people to be more creative, others say they are making users lazy. What are your observations?  

I think people are truly more creative. Take the Antiques Roadshow as an example, an international format that originated at the BBC.  

We’ve run it for 36 years. People present their antiques and have experts estimate their value. The producers used to work with still pictures but with AI support they can animate them.  

But again, it’s not the machine, it’s the human and the machine together.  

You were a newsroom leader for many, many years. What has helped to bring colleagues along and have them work with AI?  

I think we cracked the code. What we’ve done is, we created four small hubs: one for news, one for programmes, one for the back office and one for product. And the head of AI is holding it all together.  

The hubs consist of devoted experts who have designated time for coaching and experimenting with new tools. And then there’s a network of super users, we have 200 alone in the news department.  

It has been such a great experience to have colleagues learn from each other.  

It’s a top-down movement but bottom-up as well. We combine that with training, AI learning days with open demos. Everyone has access and possibility.  

We’ve tried to democratize learning. What has really helped to change attitudes and culture was when we created our own SVTGPT, a safe environment for people to play around in. 

What are the biggest conflicts about the usage of AI in the newsroom? 

The greatest friction is to have enthusiastic teams and co-workers who want to explore AI tools, but then there are no legal or financial frameworks in place.  

It’s like curiosity and enthusiasm meeting GDPR or privacy. And that’s difficult because we want people to explore, but we also want to do it in a safe manner. 

Would you say there’s too much regulation?  

No, I just think the AI is developing at a speed we’re not used to. And we need to find the time to have our legal and security department on board.  

Also, the market is flooded with new tools. And of course, some people want to try them all. But it’s not possible to assess fast that they’re safe enough. That’s when people feel limited. 

No one seems to be eager to talk about ethics any longer because everyone is so busy keeping up and afraid of missing the boat. 

Maybe we are in a good spot because we can experiment with animated kids’ content first. That’s different from experimenting with news where we are a lot more careful.  

Do you get audience reaction when using AI?  

There are some reactions, more curious than sceptical.  

What also helps is that the Swedish media industry has agreed upon AI transparency recommendations, saying that we will tell the audience that is AI when it has a substantial influence on the content. It could be confusing to label every tiny thing.  

Where do you see the future of journalism in the AI age now with reasoning models coming up and everyone thinking, oh, AI can do much of the news work that has been done by humans before? 

I’m certain that journalism has to move up in the value chain to investigation, verification and premium content.  

And we need to be better in providing context and accountability.  

Accountability is so valuable because it will become a rare commodity. If I want to contact Facebook or Instagram, it’s almost impossible. And how do you hold an algorithm accountable?  

But it is quite easy to reach an editor or reporter. We are close to home and accountable. Journalists will need to shift from being content creators and curators to meaning makers.  

We need to become more constructive and foster trust and optimism.  

Being an optimist is not always easy these days. Do you have fears in the face of the new AI world? 

Of course. One is that an overreliance on AI will lead to a decline in critical thinking and originality.  

We’re also super aware that there are a lot of hallucinations. Also, that misinformation could undermine public trust, and that it is difficult to balance innovation with an ethical AI governance.  

Another fear is that we are blinded by all the shiny new things and that we’re not looking at the big picture.  

What do you think is not talked about enough in the context of journalism and AI? 

We need to talk more about soft values: How are we as human beings affected by new technology?  

If we all stare at our own devices instead of looking at things together, we will see loneliness and isolation rise further.  

Someone recently said we used to talk about physical health then about mental health, and now we need to talk about social health, because you don’t ever need to meet anyone, you can just interact with your device. I think that’s super scary.  

And public service has such a meaningful role in sparking conversations, getting people together across generations.  

Another issue we need to talk more about is: if there is so much personalization and everyone has their own version of reality, what will we put in the archives? We need a shared record.

This interview was published by the EBU on 16th April as an appetizer for the EBU News Report “Leading Newsrooms in the Age of Generative AI”. 

Posted on

Kasper Lindskow, JP Politiken Media Group: “Generative AI can Give Journalists Superpowers”

Kasper Lindskow is the Head of AI at the Danish Politiken Media Group, one of the front runners in implementing GenAI based solutions in the industry. He is also co-founder of the Nordic AI in Media Summit, a leading industry conference on AI. Alexandra spoke to him about how to bring people along with new technologies, conflicts in the newsroom, and how to get the right tone of voice in the journalism. 

Kasper, industry insiders regard JP/Politiken as a role model in implementing AI in its newsrooms. Which tools have been the most attractive for your employees so far?  

We rolled out a basic ChatGPT clone in a safe environment to all employees in March 2024 and are in the process of rolling out more advanced tools. The key for us has been to “toolify” AI so that it can be used broadly across the organization, also for the more advanced stuff.  

Now, the front runners are using it in all sorts of different creative ways. But we are seeing the classic cases being used most widely, like proofreading and adaptation to the writing guides of our different news brands, for example suggesting headlines.  

We’ve seen growing use of AI also for searching the news archive and writing text boxes.  

Roughly estimated, what’s the share of people in your organization who feel comfortable using AI tools on a daily basis? 

Well, the front runners are experimenting with them regardless of whether we make tools available. I’d estimate this group to be between 10 and 15 percent of newsroom staff. I’d say we have an equally small group who are not interested in interacting with AI at all.  

And then we have the most interesting group, between 70 and 80 percent or so of journalists who are interested and having tried to work with AI a little bit.  

From our perspective, the most important part of rolling out AI is to build tools that fit that group to ensure a wider adoption. The potential is not in the front runners but in the normal, ordinary journalists. 

This sounds like a huge, expensive effort. How large is your team?  

We are an organization of roughly 3,000 people. Currently we are 11 people working full-time on AI development in the centralized AI unit plus two PhDs. That’s not a lot. But we also work for local AI hubs in different newsrooms, so people there spend time working with us.  

This is costly. It does take time and effort, in particular if you want high quality and you want to ensure everything aligns with the journalism.  

I do see a risk here of companies underinvesting and only doing the efficiency part and not aligning it with the journalism. 

Do you have public-facing tools and products? 

In recommender systems we do, because that’s about personalizing the news flow. That’s public facing and enabled by metadata.  

We’re also activating metadata in ways that are public facing just for example in “read more” lists that are not personalized.  

But in general, we’re not doing anything really public facing with generative AI that does not have humans in the loop yet. 

What are the biggest conflicts around AI in your organization or in the newsroom? 

Most debates are about automated recommender systems. Because sometimes they churn out stuff that colleagues don’t find relevant.  

But our journalists have very different reading profiles from the general public. They read everything and then they criticize when something very old turns up.  

And then, of course, you have people thinking: “What will this do to my job?”  

But all in all, there hasn’t been much criticism. We are getting a lot more requests like: “Can you please build this for me?” 

What do you think the advancement of generative AI will do to the news industry as a whole? 

Let’s talk about risks first. There’s definitely a risk of things being rolled out too fast. This is very new technology. We know some limitations, others we don’t.  

So, it is important to roll it out responsibly at a pace that people can handle and with the proper education along the way.  

If you roll it out too fast there will be mistakes that would both hurt the rollout of AI and the potential you could create with it, impacting the trustworthiness of news.  

Another risk is not taking the need to align these systems with your initial mission seriously enough. 

Some organizations struggle with strategic alignment, could you explain this a bit, please?  

Generative AI has a well-known tendency to gravitate towards the median in its output – meaning that if you have that fast prototype with a small prompt and roll it out then your articles tend to become dull, ordinary and average.  

It’s not necessarily a tool for excellence. It can be but you really need to do it right. You need to align it with the news brand and its particular tone of voice, for example. That requires extensive work, user testing and fine-tuning of the systems underneath.  

If we don’t take the journalistic work seriously, either because we don’t have resources to do it or because we don’t know it or move too fast, it could have a bad impact on what we’re trying to achieve. Those are the risk factors that we can impact ourselves. 

The other risks depend on what happens in the tech industry? 

A big one is when other types of companies begin using AI to do journalism. 

You mean companies that are not bound by journalistic values? 

If you’re not a public service broadcaster but a private media company, for the past 20 years you’ve experienced a structural decline.  

If tech giants begin de-bundling the news product even further by competing with journalists, this could accelerate the structural decline of news media.  

But we should talk about opportunities now. Because if done properly, generative AI in particular has massive potential. It can give journalists superpowers.  

Because it helps to enrich storytelling and to automate the boring tasks? 

We are not there yet. But generative AI is close to having the potential for, once you have done your news work with finding the story, telling that story across different modalities.  

And to me that is strong positive potential for addressing different types of readers and audiences. 

We included a case study on Magna in the first EBU News Report which was published in June 2024. What have your biggest surprises been since then? 

My biggest positive surprise is the level of feedback we are getting from our journalists. They’re really engaging with these tools. It’s extremely exciting for us as an AI unit that we are no longer working from assumptions but we are getting this direct feedback.  

I am positively surprised but also cautious about the extent to which we have been able to adapt these systems to our individual news brands. Our tool Magna is a shared infrastructure framework for everyone.  

But when you ask it to perform a task it gives very different output depending on the brand you request it for. You get, for example, a more tabloid-style response for Ekstra Bladet and a more sophisticated one for our upmarket Politiken.  

A lot of work went into writing very different prompts for the different brands.  

What about the hallucinations everyone is so afraid of? 

This was another surprise. We thought that factuality was going to be the big issue. We had many tests and found out that when we use it correctly and ground it in external facts, we are seeing very few factual errors and hallucinations.  

Usually, they stem from an article in the archive that is outdated because something new happened, not because of any hallucinations inside the model.  

The issue is more getting the feel right in the output, the tone of voice, the angles that are chosen in this publication that we’re working with – everything that has to do with the identity of the news brand.  

This interview was published by the EBU as an appetizer for the News Report “Leading Newsrooms in the Age of Generative AI” on .8th April 2025.

Posted on

Managers, Talk About Your Fears!

Supposedly, the days are over when newsrooms resembled macho hives, war reporters were the cool guys with armoured souls and journalists could only guess a colleague’s burnout by the length of a sick leave. At least that’s how Phil Chetwynd, Global News Director at the AFP news agency, sees it. While 10 to 15 years ago newsrooms were dominated by a culture of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, since then not only has the discussion about mental health in the workplace reached a different level; appropriate structures have also been put in place, Chetwynd said on a panel at the International Journalism Festival in Perugia. This was necessary, he added, as journalists worldwide were facing unprecedented pressure.

In fact, just scrolling through the festival program provides a good overview of all the pain points: Eroding business are squeezing budgets and AI is accelerating the pace of innovation, while authoritarian politicians and their vassals are discrediting journalism, threatening journalists and sowing mistrust or even hostility towards the profession among the population, which is expressed both online and offline. Nevertheless, it is safe to assume that some media executives have not yet understood this with all its consequences.

In fact, business models can only be made resilient if you take care of those who are supposed to do so. And for all the reasons mentioned, the media industry has lost its appeal. Many journalists and media managers are questioning their career choice or leaving for calmer waters if they can. And the next generations don’t even feel tempted to join. In editorial offices that operate according to the old principle “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”, things could soon become breezy. Starting your own business is an alternative. However, it is more suitable for workaholics and self-exploiters, as was made clear on one or two other panels. So even in start-ups, there is no harm in thinking about mental health at an early stage.

Journalist and consultant Hannah Storm – on stage with Chetwynd – has published a book on the subject in 2024. “Mental Health and Wellbeing for Journalists” is based on 45 interviews with media people and trauma experts from all over the world. Key is to create safe spaces for conversations about the topic, said Storm. And anyone who thinks of post-traumatic stress disorder primarily in terms of war correspondents is underestimating the extent of the issue. For example, those who view disturbing footage day in, day out may be more affected than those who work in the middle of the action, said Storm. Vicarious trauma is the technical term for this. Psychologist Sian Williams has developed some recommendations for newsrooms on how to deal with this.

Such guidelines should also be of interest to local editors, as colleagues who frequently report from accident scenes or are confronted with gruesome details when covering the courts generally receive less attention than those who are sent to crisis areas. And fact-checkers are particularly threatened online – to an extent, as Chetwynd reports, that they no longer sign their texts with their names at AFP. The non-profit company The Self Investigation has put together a toolkit on mental health specifically for this group.

For some it’s not the news that causes burnout, but the accelerated pace in newsrooms coupled with economic pressure and concerns that AI could make the job redundant – all this on top of the normal madness of family management that keeps many colleagues busy in key career years. And this is not only true in cultures where self-fulfilment and leisure time play a major role. At a change management workshop for a media company in Malaysia – I led the seminar – participants brought up work-life balance and mental health as top challenges for the industry.  

Emma Thomasson, now a consultant and previously a bureau chief and senior correspondent at Reuters, addressed the topic proactively at the news agency and met with such a positive response that she set up a corresponding internal program. Today, she is involved in the journalist helpline of the Netzwerk Recherche, which offers help to all those who feel that the stress of their job is getting too much for them.

But managers are not doing their job if they leave such offers solely to external bodies and the initiative of those potentially affected. It is important to create a culture in which employees can talk about such experiences without fear, said Chetwynd. This includes managers also showing themselves to be vulnerable. This challenge must be taken up by all those in leadership positions. At AFP, with its 150 offices around the world, that’s a lot of people, but that’s the only way it works. Chetwynd: “The only barriers to a potentially unlimited amount of work are the managers.”

Experts consider two things in particular to be important to alleviate stress: good preparation and regular breaks. Not every journalist, for example, is suited for every assignment simply because of their character and personal history. And managers should address the potential risks proactively before someone takes on a task – be it a disaster assignment or moderating online comments. Adjustment helps. AFP, for example, only lets crisis reporters go to the front lines once they have become familiar with the environment and culture in less exposed roles. And after a few weeks, they must take time off to breathe. This sounds simple, but in many traditional newsrooms as well as in start-ups, it is part of the culture to quietly let workaholics do their thing if they get unloved work out of the way or increase the fame of the brand. This may work in the short term, but in the long run such negligence can be expensive – not to mention the human cost of it. 

Media companies are generally well advised to think proactively about the current and desired corporate or editorial culture, put it in words and communicate it precisely to employees. Lea Korsgaard, editor-in-chief of the widely praised Danish news brand Zetland, presented clear principles on another Perugia panel. Everyone who joins the company gets an hour with her, “and then I explain the culture”, she said, adding: “If you want to create a human-centric product, you need a human-centred culture.” Any news organization who wants to play a part in the battle for talent should listen up.

This column was written for and published by Medieninsider in German (“Chefs, redet über eure Ängste!”) on 15th April 2025.

Posted on

Interview with Prof. Charlie Beckett on AI: “Frankly, I’ve never seen industry executives so worried before”

LSE-Professor Charlie Beckett, founder and director of the JournalismAI project, talks about what AI means for journalism, how to tell advice from rubbish, and how the news industry adjusts to the new challenges.

Medieninsider: Since the launch of ChatGPT, new AI applications relevant to journalism have been announced almost every day. Which one intrigues you the most?

Charlie Beckett: A small newsroom in Malawi that is participating in our AI course for small newsrooms, recently built a generative AI-based tool that is practically a whole toolbox, It can be used to simplify newsroom workflows. The idea is to quickly process information and cast it into formats, a kind of super-efficient editorial manager. It’s not one of those sensational applications that help discover deep fakes or unearth the next Watergate as an investigative tool. But I think it’s great: an African newsroom that quickly develops something that makes day-to-day operations easier. I think the immediate future lies in these more mechanical applications. That often gets lost in the media hype. People would rather discuss topics like killer robots.

 

Do you think small newsrooms will benefit most from AI, or will the big players be the winners once again?

The answer is: I don’t know! So far, when it comes to innovation, large newsrooms have benefited the most because they can invest more. But if small newsrooms can find a few tools to help them automate newsletters or analyze data for an investigative project, for example, it can help them tremendously. A ten percent gain in efficiency can be an existential question for them. For local newsrooms AI could prove to be a bridge technology. At least that’s what I hear in conversations.

Because they can do more with fewer people? There is this example from Sweden of a tool that automatically evaluates real estate prices; it has been successful generating subscriptions, because readers love that kind of stuff – just like weather and traffic reports.

At least, that’s what editors at small newsrooms hope. They say they could use AI to produce at least sufficient content to justify the existence of their brand. Reporters could then focus on researching real local stories. We’ll see if that happens. But AI will definitely shape the industry at least as much as online journalism and the rise of social media have.

AI seems to unleash enthusiasm and a spirit of experimentation in the industry, unlike back in the early days of online journalism, when many were sceptical.

The speed of the development is almost breath-taking. In the beginning, we looked at artificially generated images and thought, well, that looks a bit wobbly. Three months later, there were already impressively realistic images. We’re moving through this hype cycle right now. No matter which newsroom in the world I talk to everyone is at least playing around with AI; by the end of the year at the latest, many will have implemented something.

But you say it’s too early to make predictions?

We’re seeing an extremely fluid development right now. Advertisers don’t yet know what to do, and in the relationship between platform groups and publishers, a lot is out in the open again. In fact, I’ve never experienced anything like this before. It’s clear to everyone that we’re facing a big change.

But isn’t it risky to just wait, and see?

Automation is still very unstable. Setting up new processes at the current level would be like building a house on a volcano. The right process is: let employees experiment, learn, and definitely think about potential impacts. If you’re asking me now, what are the ten tools I need to know, that’s the wrong question.

That’s exactly what I wanted to ask, of course. That’s what a lot of people want to know at the moment, after all. And everyone wants to be the first to publish the ultimate AI manual for newsrooms. So, do you have to be suspicious when someone confidently claims to have solutions?

We are currently collecting who is using which tools and what experiences are being made with them. But we are not making recommendations about what is the best tool. I just spoke to the CEO of a major broadcaster. They are doing it this way: In addition to regular meetings and information sessions, they take half an hour a day to simply play around with new tools. If you’re a CEO, of course you must budget for AI. But it should be flexible.

Many newsrooms are currently establishing rules for the responsible use of AI. Bayerischer Rundfunk is one example; the person who pushed this was in one of the first cohorts of your LSE Journalism and AI Project.

Establishing rules is a good thing, but it should read at the very beginning: All this could change. It’s also important to start such a set of rules with a message of encouragement. Any CEO who immediately says we don’t do this, and we don’t do that is making a big mistake. The best guidelines are the ones that say, these are our limits, and these are the important questions we should be asking about all applications. Transparency is an important issue: who do I tell what I’m experimenting with? My supervisors, my colleagues, the users? And, of course, a general caution is in order. Currently there are swarms of company representatives out there, trying to sell you miracle tools. 90 percent of them are nonsense.

How transparent should you be to the public?

Bloomberg, for example, writes under its texts: This is 100 percent AI-generated. That’s not meant as a warning signal, but as a sign of pride. It’s meant to say: we can handle this technology; you can trust us. I think editors are a bit too worried about that. Today it doesn’t read under texts: „Some of the information came from news agencies“ or „The intern helped with the research.” Newsrooms should confidently use transparency notices to show consumers that they want to give them more value. Some brands will continue to have clickbait pages and now fill them with a lot of AI rubbish without disclosing that. But these have probably always produced a lot of garbage.

How does journalism education need to change? Should those who enter the profession because they like to write now be discouraged from doing so because AI will soon be extremely good at it?

The first thing I would say is that not much will change. The qualities and skills we foster in education are deeply human: curiosity, creativity, competencies. in the past 15 years, of course, technical skills have been added. Then again fundamental things have changed. Today, more than ever, it’s about building relationships with users, it is not just about product development. Journalism is a data-driven, structured process of information delivery. With generative AI, technology fades into the background. You don’t have to learn how to code any longer. But a key skill will be to learn how to write excellent prompts. Writing prompts will be like coding, but without the math.

Journalists may feel their core skills challenged by these AI tools, but couldn’t they be a great opportunity to democratize anything that requires language fluency? For example, my students, many of whom are not native speakers, use ChatGPT to edit their resumes.

Maybe we shouldn’t use that big word democratization, but AI could lower barriers and remove obstacles. The lines between disciplines are likely to blur. I used to need data scientists or graphic designers to do certain tasks, now I can do a lot of stuff myself with the right prompts. On the other hand, I’m sceptical. We often underestimate the ways in which inequalities and injustices persist online.

We’ve talked a lot about the opportunities of AI for journalism. What are the biggest risks?

There is, of course, the great dependence on tech companies, and the risk of discrimination. Journalism has to be fact-based and accurate, generative AI can’t deliver that to the same extent. But the biggest risk is probably that the role of the media as an intermediator will continue to dwindle. Already the Internet has weakened that role; people can go directly to those offering information. But AI that is based on language models will answer all questions without people ever encountering the source of the information. This is a massive problem for business models. What kind of regulation will be needed, what commercial agreements, what about copyright? Frankly, I’ve never seen industry executives so worried before.

This is indeed threatening.

It’s existential. First, they said, oh my God, the Internet has stolen our ad revenue. Then they said, oh my God, Twitter has taken attention away from us. And now they’re staring at this thing thinking, why in the world would anyone ever come to my website again? And they have to find an answer to that.

Do journalists have to fear for their jobs?

Media organisations won’t disappear overnight. But there will be more products that will look like good journalism. We have a toxic cocktail here that is fascinating, but also scary. This cocktail consists of uncertainty, which journalists always love. It also consists of complexity, which is exciting for all intelligent people. The third ingredient is speed, and the old rule applies here: we usually overestimate the short-term consequences and underestimate the long-term effects. Over the 15 years that I’ve been doing this, there have been people who have said, 80 percent of media brands will disappear, or 60 percent of journalists will no longer be needed or things like that. But today we have more journalism than ever before.

But the dependence on the big tech companies will grow rather than shrink. 

On the one hand, yes. You definitely need friends from this tech world to help you understand these things. On the other hand, suddenly there’s new competition. Google may no longer be this great power we thought it was. New competition always opens opportunities to renegotiate your own position. The media industry must take advantage of these opportunities. I’m on shaky grounds here because the JournalismAI initiative is funded by Google. But I think neither Google nor politicians really care about how the media is doing. Probably quite a few politicians would be happy if journalism disappeared. We therefore need to redefine and communicate as an industry what the added value of journalism is for people and society – regardless of previous ideas about journalism as an institution.

Quite a few colleagues in the industry say behind closed doors, „Fortunately, I’m approaching the end of my career, the best years of journalism are behind us.“ Would you want to be a journalist again under the current conditions and perspectives?

Absolutely. It’s an empirical fact that with all the possibilities today, you can produce better journalism than ever before.

The interview was first published in German by Medieninsider on 9th September 2023 and in English on 14th September 2023.