Tag: #nic newman

Posted on

The Optimist’s Guide to the Digital News Report

If you work in the media industry and want to feed your pessimism, the  Digital News Report 2025 makes it easy for you, because this is what it tells you: influencers are challenging established media brands right and left, news avoidance is at an all-time high, and it is becoming increasingly difficult (and costly!) to reach audiences because they are spread across even more platforms – sorted according to political preferences and educational level.. Welcome to the journalistic dreariness of the propaganda age! However, if you want to pave the way for journalism’s future, the only thing that helps is to look at things through the optimist’s glasses. And through these, the media world looks much friendlier already. Here are a few encouraging findings from the publication by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford, whose material media professionals like to dissect and discuss:

Firstly, trust in established media is stable. This has been true for the global average for three years – this time, the report covers around 100,000 online users in 48 markets – but also for Germany, where the long-term study on media trust conducted by the University of Mainz recently recorded similar figures. Yes, things looked even better in Germany ten years ago. But the figure currently stands at 45 percent (Mainz study: 47 percent), which is respectable by international standards. As elsewhere, public broadcasters perform particularly well. In addition, the researchers note that users of all age groups prefer traditional media brands when they doubt the veracity of information. The oft-repeated narrative of dwindling trust in the media cannot be substantiated this year either – although trust in the media and media usage are two different things.

Secondly, attracting audiences to your own platforms – that can be done. At least, that’s what the Norwegians, Swedes, and Finns have proven. Public broadcasters there have invested heavily in their own video platforms and are very restrictive when it comes to posting their content on platforms such as YouTube or X. The Finnish broadcaster Yle now attracts more users to its platform than all other providers in Finland combined. The study tours to Scandinavia by many media professionals are therefore justified.

Thirdly, energetic journalists can benefit from the influencer trend and successfully start their own businesses.Frenchman Hugo Travers (Hugodecrypte) now reaches as many users aged 35 and under in France as established media brands: 22 percent of them said they had heard of him in the previous week. The audience appreciates the (perceived) authenticity and approachability of such personal brands. The fly in the ointment: many demagogues on the political right have benefited from this so far, and the line between journalism and opinion-making is blurred. Research by the news agency AFP has revealed that politicians in Nigeria and Kenya hired influencers specifically to spread false messages.

Fourthly, willingness to pay remains stable – and there is room for improvement. Okay, the percentage of people who pay for digital journalism averages 18 percent – that could certainly be higher. But it’s also quite something to know that, despite all the free content available online, around one in five people are willing to pay for journalism – in Germany, the figure is 13 percent. The researchers believe that the subscription market is far from exhausted. Where paying is already common practice, the key is to intelligently bundle offerings and create more interesting pricing models that cater to different types of users. Incidentally, regional and local newspapers in Germany stand out in international comparison with their subscription rates. On the one hand, the researchers speculate that this is an expression of federalism and the fact that many users strongly identify with their regions. On the other hand, projects such as data pooling in Drive or Wan-Ifra’s Table Stakes Europe may also have contributed to this success; they encourage the exchange of experiences, networking, and a focus on targeting specific audiences and user needs.

Fifth, text lives on – especially in this part of the world. Yes, there are highly respected experts who predict at AI conferences that the future of journalism lies in chat – specifically, spoken chat. People would rather talk and listen than write and read, they say. Elsewhere, media professionals complain that young users only digest short-form video, if they pay any attention to journalism at all. The figures do not support these claims. Text is still the most important format for 55 percent of users worldwide. This is different in some countries in Asia and Africa, which could also have to do with later literacy rates. But it is definitely still worthwhile for media companies to invest in first-class texts. There is ample evidence that young people also enjoy listening to long podcasts or binge-watching series. Only one thing does not work today and will work less and less as AI delivers decent quality: poor text.

Sixth, the audience is smarter than many journalists believe. When it comes to the use of AI, for example, respondents expect pretty much what is predicted or feared in the industry: journalism production is likely to become cheaper and even faster, while factual accuracy and trustworthiness will decline. Young consumers in particular are skeptical about media use and verify a lot. In countries such as Thailand and Malaysia, where journalism is largely consumed via TikTok and Facebook, users are very well aware that they may be exposed to lies or fantasy news on these platforms. When it comes to “fake news,” 47 percent of respondents consider online influencers and politicians to be the greatest threat, which is likely a realistic assessment. And many users worry that they could miss important stories if media companies personalize their offerings more in order to turn these users into loyal customers. 

Incidentally, what respondents worldwide want from journalism is: more impartiality, factual accuracy, transparency, and original research and reporting. Media researchers couldn’t have put it better themselves.

This column was published in German for the industry publication Medieninsider on 17th June 2025.

 

Posted on

Climate Journalism Needs to Mature from Topic to Mindset

Scenes like this are probably familiar to many: At a preparatory meeting for an event later in the year one participant suggests that it could revolve entirely around climate change reporting. One of the participants, an editor-in-chief, is skeptical: “Won’t this be a little old by then?” The reflexes work, the man has done his job. Be fresh, be surprising, don’t ride anything to death  – everyone who is trained in the daily business of news has internalized this way of thinking. It is called news for a reason after all. But how does that fit with an earth-altering development that manifests itself mostly in slow motion and only at times with the force of catastrophes? Newsrooms have not yet had to cover anything like that, a for the most part unpredictable process which challenges our way of living and doing business right down to the smallest personal habit.  

Wolfgang Blau knows all about these reflexes. Few media managers are currently dealing as intensively with the demands and difficulties of climate reporting as he is. The former editor-in-chief of Zeit Online, who pursued his career at the Guardian and the publishing house Condé Nast, is currently focusing on the demands and difficulties of climate reporting. Being the co-founder of the Oxford Climate Journalism Network at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, he pinpointed the hurdles to overcome for those who want to report on climate change seriously and effectively in a lecture. The list is long.

In conversations with media people around the world, Blau identified operational but also cultural and ethical challenges. The compulsion to highlight the latest news, the fixation on disasters, the lack of expertise among reporters are the best known. Nic Newman’s media leaders’ survey “Journalism, Media, and Technology Trends and Predictions,” also reflected on some of these. In the 2022 edition, the nearly 250 editors-in-chief and top managers from around the world complained about two things in particular: First: There is a lot of good climate journalism, but the readership does not take to it to the extent they always claim in surveys. Second, there are too few experts in newsrooms, and the scientific culture is weak.

One of the biggest difficulties, however, that few are aware of who now dutifully identify topics, commission stories, develop explanatory formats, hire climate reporters, or set up special desks, is: Excellent climate journalism requires an entirely different mindset, explicitely a commitment to the very subject itself. It does not regard sustainability as just another topic to be dissected from an observer’s perspective alone, but as a goal. The preservation of the natural foundations of life would then be equivalent to the preservation of democracy and human rights to which independent journalism is committed.

Only, the problem is: At a time when some declare impartiality to be a religion and confuse pluralism with relativism, those who take climate journalism seriously tend to come under general suspicion. Those who openly strive for sustainability are accused to follow a green political agenda. Many owners, business managers, funders, and even quite a few editors who are committed to the journalistic principle of objectivity are therefore reluctant to follow suit. In addition, a corresponding attitude deeply interferes with personal lifestyle. It is comparatively easy to behave as a good democrat. Living as a responsible citizen of the earth places considerable demands on everyone and also raises many unanswered questions.

Blau argues that climate change requires a similar rethinking in the industry as digitization. There’s something to that, because it’s also down to the nitty-gritty: digital journalism requires a different attitude than classic print or broadcast journalism. Instead of assuming the position of the head teacher, as in the past, modern journalists are concerned with the needs of the users. Editors study and know their audiences, and ideally serve them so precisely that even demanding material is gratefully accepted – not just the clickbait scolded by digital skeptics. The goal is to build trusting relationships between senders and recipients. In climate journalism, it becomes something like a triangle: Users are supposed to engage with often uncomfortable facts and ideally derive consequences for their own actions: behave differently as consumers and/or get politically involved in preserving the planet.

This is where problem number two arises: Journalism that deliberately aims to change behavior comes under suspicion of activism. And yes, journalists who care about strong, independent reporting should be suspicious of the campaigning nature of activism. But can climate reporting that accomplishes nothing be good climate journalism at all? When it comes to the big issues like democracy, equality or even sustainability, something that could be called activating journalism is necessary. It is precisely in this balancing act that constructive journalism finds itself, which is sometimes accused of being activist. Constructive journalism works primarily against the audiences’ feelings of powerlessness. According to surveys, one in three people regularly avoids the news, mainly on the grounds that it leaves them behind helpless and/or in a bad mood.

What could climate journalism look like that doesn’t do that? The French news agency AFP, for example, has reorganized its entire newsroom into “hubs,” including one that deals with the future of the planet in all its facets. Every story needs a climate dimension, says AFP editor-in-chief Phil Chetwynd. Ritu Kapur, founder of Indian news platform The Quint, also believes looking ahead is crucial. Doomsday scenarios don’t go down very well with audiences, she says, but anything that involves people and the impact of climate change and strategies against it on employment, growth, mobility, and lifestyle. A big hit with the Quint-audiences was: How can the ecological footprint of a big traditional wedding be minimized?

Good climate journalism definitely needs to become a cross-cutting issue. Every reporter, every commentator should critically examine in all assignments what impact events, new products, projects, or political steps have on sustainability and climate protection – whether that’s the Olympics, new car models or transport projects. Correspondents must address was digitization does to energy consumption, they still do this far too rarely.

Problem number three arises from all of this: the contradiction between commentators’ demands and the media’s own role model function. Media companies, which are often medium-sized and financially strapped, seldom excel in practicing sustainability. While it has become increasingly common in many other industries to calculate and document the ecological footprint of products and processes, this is rarely seen with publishers and their newsrooms. This mirrors a common trait, witnessed also in other areas, for example gender equality or diversity: There is a gap between flaming commentary on the one hand and corresponding, transparent action on the other. Only a few companies have understood that this puts nothing less than their very credibility at stake.

So, what would help climate preservation is an activating journalism, supported by a commitment and mindset that is reflected in the entire organization, its products and practices. So much for the ideal. If you want or need to start a little smaller, start with a qualified, energetic, and outspoken climate correspondent. But he or she should have a seat at the table every day, not just in case of floods, storms, or fires. 

This column was first published in German on 16th February 2022 by Medieninsider.         

 

 

Posted on

The Power of the Middle – Not even media leaders themselves think that they have the best ideas

Middle management in companies more often than not suffers from its infamous reputation. They are branded as rule-abiding busy bees, nitpickers who stick to processes just as much as they stick to their own chairs, managers, definitely not leaders. If they were, they would have long been promoted to the top – or so it is taught in many a business school. Former Siemens CEO Peter Löscher once spoke of a “clay layer,” the term even survived his own career in the company. A word that is like a slap in the face of all those tireless getting-things-doners who not only keep the company running on a daily basis, but also strive for constant improvement and overhaul, whether there is a crisis or not.

In the media industry, bosses are apparently no longer so sure about that clay layer. In the new “Journalism, media and technology trends and predictions” report by Nic Newman, which the Reuters Institute in Oxford publishes regularly at the beginning of the year, top managers were at least refreshingly self-critical about their own capacity to generate top ideas. Only about one in four (26 percent) of the 234 executives surveyed from 43 countries said they were convinced that top management generates the best ideas. The problem, as Nic Newman frames it: Innovation might not come from the top, “but companies are still run that way”. The report is not representative, but it is a must-read in the industry precisely because the respondents tend to be leaders who are particularly concerned about progress.

But where do they see innovation coming from? Nearly three-quarters revealed that data and audience research were most likely to give them a leg up, 68 percent bet on mixed teams from different areas, and still just under one in two admitted to borrowing the best strategies from other media companies. Okay, according to the survey, editors-in-chief and media managers trusted middle management as such even less (17 percent) than they trusted themselves. But who meets in the mixed teams, who evaluates audience data and derives strategies from it, who attends the relevant industry meetings, reads up on foreign material and then reports to the C-level? That’s right, in the very most common case, it’s the mid-level.

It is often those who are not celebrated as heroes in any industry publication and who neither management literature nor research has an eye on. They are the ones who are closest to the difficulties – and often therefore to the solutions. But they are also the ones for whom demands from employees and customers alike pile up into a sandwich of expectations. They are expected to be both operationally reliable and to think strategically and manage change. And if something goes wrong, it’s up to them to pick up the pieces and rebuild them into something else – in management-speak this is coined as “celebrating failure.

This layer of dedicated and loyal drivers of innovation, many of whom are at an age and in situations where family work demands additional work from them, is – no surprise – most at risk of burnout. Lucy Küng, who researches cultural change in media companies that go digital, has revealed this in countless interviews, including in her latest book: “Hearts and Minds: Harnessing Leadership, Culture and Talent to Really Go Digital.” This results in a huge brain and talent drain, she emphasizes again and again.

Yet many managers consider the mid level worthy of support only as long as they themselves are part of it. As soon as they have made it into top positions, they recoin themselves as visionaries. Gianpiero Petriglieri, a professor at INSEAD Business School, calls this “leaderism.” Instead of valuing reliable and constructive management, which is so necessary especially in times of crisis, he says, people celebrate visionaries whose ideas all too often go down with them. The glorification of leadership on the one hand and the devaluation of management qualities on the other is a dangerous pair of opposites that is still taught, but does more harm than good, especially in crises, he eloquently describes in the essay: “Why leadership isn’t a miracle cure for the Covid-19 crisis (and what can really help).” It is time to put less hope in leadership and more humanity into management, Petriglieri said. Judging by the “Trends and Predictions” report, many media managers already understand this. Humility can be the first step toward innovation.

This text was first published in German with Hamburg Media School Blog on 15th January 2021, then translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator and edited.