Tag: #research

Posted on

“The launch vehicle must be a human being”

Toan Nguyễn belongs among Germany’s best known marketers who specialize on young audiences. He founded the agency Jung von Matt NERD, a spin off of the famous agency, where he worked until the end of 2025. I interviewed Toan for our report on Gen Z and news for Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung.  

Toan, many media companies are working hard on getting the next generations hooked on their products. But is there such a thing as THE young audience?

Young people use media differently because they were exposed to media and technology at a different time than older generations. It’s true that they have a shorter attention span. Forms of presentation need to be adapted to this. Nevertheless, I prefer to talk about ‘style groups’ rather than target groups – people who stand out because of shared beliefs, interests, passions, mentalities and worldviews.

What would be a style group for you?

My classic example is a 21-year-old with a yoga mat and a mindfulness app standing next to a 51-year-old who also does yoga in the organic food store by the almond butter shelf. She probably has more in common with her than with another 21-year-old who comes from the chemist’s and has a cheap brand of lip gloss in her bag. So, I prefer to look at: What are the values, hierarchies, beliefs and principles that these people have? And of course, there are very different style groups within Generation Z. As a marketer and communicator, I have to think carefully about which messages I convey to whom.

As the founder and managing director of Jung von Matt Nerd, you developed many products for young people. Your task was, as they say, disruption.

Many of the products I created appealed to a wide range of age groups. This is best illustrated by the example of Super Mario Haribos (a type of sweets), which I co-invented. People thought about it as a great rejuvenation measure. But the product sells across all age groups. Nevertheless, the secret sauce of every successful work I have done is that it was anchored in a community. It’s also called ‘community-centric creativity’.

Could the media industry learn something from this?

I think so. The big difference between my approach and traditional marketing is that I look at what’s happening outside: where are these communities of interest emerging, and how can I connect with them? This is the so-called ‘outside-in approach’ from management literature. Old marketing was always inside-out. It was all about the brand essence, brand values and stories that were penetrated through classic channels with a large media budget. Back then, pop culture was also a question of volume and frequency. Today, pop culture emerges in niches and around influencers.

The traditional approach describes the situation in many newsrooms: you sit around a table or on a Teams call and think about which topics might be interesting  for ‘young users’. What advice would you give to editors-in-chief? 

I’d mention three things: First, develop outside-in expertise and don’t work from an ivory tower. Second, build personal brands. I think that’s the most important thing. People trust people who write about people, and that’s even more true for younger generations. They no longer trust logos. A logo like ARD or, in Austria, ZIB can be a seal of quality, a reassurance, but the launch vehicle must be a human being.

But that also carries risks. If followers are attached to a creator or news influencer and these make mistakes or behave unethically, the reputation of the entire media brand may suffer.

I am clearly referring to the plural: several strong personal brands. Every top journalist must build their own reach, become their own face and stand for an opinion. That is the only distribution that still works. A company account has eight times less organic reach than a personal account. That is a waste of money. That is one thing, the other is pluralism. Good journalistic products are usually part of the discourse. What I still don’t understand is why publishers don’t build up different protagonists and play with them.

Because they often only serve one community, at least in terms of political orientation.

I believe, and this is the third point, that you have to build your editorial team like a football team. Not everyone has to do the same thing. Some should polarise, do a bit of clickbait, be strikers. Others should defend a bit, make sure the facts are correct. You have to build diversity into your team. If you only have ten goalkeepers, you’re boring. If you only have ten clickbaiters, you’re not credible. And you need substitutes and young players. You have to train your trainees so that you can bring them on as substitutes.

Where does the media industry stand in terms of these criteria, and what is going wrong?

Two years ago, I could have listed a long list of mistakes, but I think there is energy in the industry again, something is happening. A lot has changed in terms of craftsmanship. But there is a lack of personal brands. And there is a huge opportunity in community building. Media companies could get much more involved in events to build loyalty and connect different strands.

What has changed in the last two years? Have you observed a generational change?

Yes, you can see that in some companies, the people at the top are a bit younger. There is also more investment in video content and other formats, which I think is good. But there are also opportunities in print in the magazine sector.

Really? Most companies are winding that down.

I think print journalists are simply writing about the wrong people, such as male CEOs over 55 who don’t sign off anything without the approval of their press officers. That’s inauthentic. It would make much more sense to pick up on trends and personalities from the online world and honour them, so to speak, with a print appearance. That can work.

Are there other formats that are underdeveloped in the media industry?

Video podcasts. They are growing nine times faster than normal podcasts. We are 100 years behind in this area. The US market is constantly showing us how it’s done.

How do you imagine journalism in the age of AI?

It will be a challenge for journalism. For the media industry per se and for anyone who has prided themselves on using their head. I see a renaissance of craftsmanship, where you see what you have done, fulfilment and a good feeling. It will be brutally difficult for young people in journalism. They will have to establish themselves as personal brands. Just being smart and doing research is no longer enough. They have to get out into real life, be on the ground, deliver documentation in photos and videos. Then there will be a few luminaries where people will want to know: What is their opinion, how do they analyse things? And in the field of feature pages and lifestyle, only those with truly excellent taste will prevail. My three Rs in the age of AI are reputation, reach and relationships. You have to build a reputation, establish relationships and have reach.

Are there any topics that need to be discussed more looking at young people and the media?

That we have a misleading concept of diversity. Diversity as it is created today always means we have a black person, an Asian person, a woman, an old man, and they all hang out together. That’s not what a peer group looks like; it doesn’t look like that in any school yard. Arabs hang out with Arabs, Asians with Asians. But there are just a few content formats that serve this need. Why not have a special edition of ZEIT magazine just for the Asian or Arab community in Germany? It’s no coincidence that one of the most successful German shows of the last ten years was 4 Blocks.´

Because traditional media have a universal claim: they want to bring people together – public broadcasters are even obliged to do so.

There are ideas on how to balance a format for specific people and specific cultural circles. I’ve always found it strange that there’s nothing like that out there.

When you look back on your time at Jung von Matt, what surprised you the most?

That rebelliousness and creativity are superpowers that are no longer sufficiently appreciated in Germany. There is an increasing search for consensus and security. It sometimes happens that individual opinions without any factual basis carry incredible weight. Experts put months of work into something, have the data on their side, and then the CEO’s wife doesn’t like it – and contracts worth millions are cancelled.

This interview was published in German here. It was part of the report “Knapp daneben ist auch vorbei” that was commissioned by Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung and published on 8th April 2026. You can find the full report here (English version forthcoming). 



Posted on

“Creating a sense of belonging is super important. You need to inspire them and get them excited”

Liesbeth Nizet’s job title is a first – at Mediahuis and presumably elsewhere: She works as Head of Future Audiences Monetization. In this context she oversaw the launch of Spilnews, a brand designed for young news consumers. Mediahuis operates out of Belgium and the Netherlands and owns an array of European media brands, among others the “Irish Independent” and the “Aachener Zeitung” ( Germany). We interviewed Liesbeth for our study on Gen Z and News, commissioned by Wiener Zeitung Media Group. 

Liesbeth, you are Head of Future Audiences Monetization at Mediahuis, a pioneering role created to explore and validate opportunities for engaging young people with news. Why was that needed?   

Liesbeth Nizet: Our organization has a long tradition of bringing people to our platforms and monetizing them there. But now a whole world of news is created outside on third-party-platforms. It was important to raise awareness, but also to force concrete choices about how we engage and monetize audiences beyond our owned platforms. It’s an and-and story, we need to make sure Mediahuis is also part of that next generation journalism, next to the loyal subscribers on our platforms.

How would you define that: next generation journalism?

Young people often don’t feel represented by traditional newspapers. News creators for example are much better at establishing that connection. Our newsrooms needed to understand that it is not enough to create something that is relevant for society, but if we want to reach younger people, it also needs to be relevant for the audiences they are creating it for. That requires different formats, different voices, and different success metrics.

You created SPILNEWS, a brand by young people for young people that is serving audiences on social media platforms, namely TikTok and Instagram. What made you do this? 

Developing formats for young people that fit all our brands didn’t work out, because every brand has its tone of voice and its way to look at who it wants to be for younger audiences. In 2025 we made the strategic choice to create journalism with a focus on Gen Z, the 18- to 24-year-olds. Gen Z is the most rebellious generation, more so than Millennials and the Alpha Generation. They really know what they want, and they want authenticity, they don’t like compromises. If you put only a few Gen Zs into an existing newsroom, they leave or they will take over the existing routines. That’s why we built a separate team, with a clear mandate to learn fast and structurally feed insights back into the organisation.

How is SPILNEWS different from the other journalism your brands produce?

For one, everyone who works for SPILNEWS is younger than 25. The topics they are covering are automatically relevant to them. In traditional newsrooms editors tend to say, ‘Let’s look at TikTok for trends that are interesting to younger people.’ But that means they are writing about young audiences not from their perspective. SPILNEWS is not about making content that is youngish or cool or short. It is about designing journalism that fits how younger audiences actually consume, trust and value information. And it’s about representation. For example, we did something about financial fitness. That’s super interesting to young people. But if it’s primarily about topics that would meet the needs of many of our (older) subscribers – second home ownership and such –, we lose them. You cannot be everything for everyone, and trying to be is one of the biggest risks for relevance. We did focus groups to find out how to be relevant for this group. 

What did the participants tell you?

Three things stood out: First, they told us, when they looked at traditional news brands, they didn’t feel like they belonged there. Second, they said if there was something bad happening, they wanted to know it but didn’t want to just hang in there, they wanted to find out how to be part of the solution. The third and in my opinion most relevant thing was, they said that they know that with TikTok they are exposed to only one side of the story. But they explicitly wanted to have different perspectives to be able to form their own opinions.

We keep hearing young people explicitly appreciate a point of view. 

What we see is that they appreciate different perspectives, like from someone who lives in the countryside versus someone who lives in a city, a student or a working young person, etc. Today all of the creator-journalists in the SPILNEWS team represent different perspectives, focusing on their topics and interests. We have someone who works on politics, he’s looking at party programs and their effects on younger people and discusses this with politicians. Someone else is super interested in technology. She discovered that when you are on Vinted – the second-hand clothing platform popular among youngsters – you are able to buy weapons there when using certain keywords. She actually tried it and then went to the police with it. Another person works on inequality and justice and someone else covers human interest stuff, for example, what you do to prevent a hangover. And we work with creators, like the 20-year-old journalism student who has a disability. He is making videos for us on how it is to be young and face all these hurdles.

Many publishers have experimented with youth brands, most failed to attract sizeable audiences. What have your experiences been? 

Thanks to SPILNEWS we are able to learn so much for our traditional brands. For example, the way we work with creators or with advertisers. We have adopted it for some of our regional brands, and it is super relevant. We have people in our traditional newsrooms who started their own TikTok accounts – I would have never thought that these individuals would. And that starts a movement showing our staff what journalism can be beyond the established routes.

It is more about learning than about commercial results then.

Learning is the primary goal in this phase but always with a clear view on monetization logic. For example, we started with branded content. We work with creators who bring stories that appeal to young people, like a campaign paid for by the government about healthy eating, featuring a hockey player who presented all the snacks he consumed during the day. 

Many including most of our interview partners say young people cannot be monetized. 

First, younger people and advertisers can be a match if you do it the right way. And second, from a subscription perspective, it’s important to show young people what journalism is because only that will get them to subscribe with other brands at some point in their lives, it is a long-term investment. So you cannot just ignore them. We know that the willingness to pay for news is low with young people. But on the other hand if you see what they are paying for – Netflix and the like – it is a call for us to reflect on why they pay for something. Creating a sense of belonging is super important. You need to inspire them and get them excited. They might take on some kind of membership, but only if it feels like entering a community, not just for access as a transactional relationship. 

Do you approach all young people alike, or do you segment young audiences? 

The needs of young audiences differ depending on their life stages and their interests, of course. Some might be working students, other young parents. You need to be aware of that and make sure that your newsroom is diverse enough. We analyse the data we get from the platforms and then we adjust. 

If you were advising editors in chief from a traditional newsroom: What would be your top three recommendations? 

The first one would be: meet your audiences where they are with your journalism, not with the recommendation ‘download our app’ or a marketing message. Show them what journalism for young people looks like. I’m pretty sure that when you make them feel they count, you will have the chance to interact with them. Representation matters. My second advice would be to follow the way the platforms are working. It’s – unfortunately – not on us to decide what a great video looks like on TikTok, you have to adjust to their rules. And third, invest in voices, because people follow people a lot more than brands. 

How will AI change all these dynamics, since young people are flocking to AI tools?

AI is a great enabler for efficiency, for summarizing, maybe also for discovering blind spots at some points. But I think it will force us to do what journalism is meant to be for, that is going to the streets looking for stories. What really matters for younger generations is authenticity. They will appreciate the convenience of AI. But human curiosity, the art of finding and telling stories is something really human, and I don’t think that it will be replaced by machines on the short term.

What has surprised you most in your work with younger people? 

What surprised me most is that we often think younger people are not interested in news. And when young people tell you that they don’t feel they belong in your news brand, that is an invitation, not a critique. They want your content, your stories but in a way that fits them and their way of life. When it comes to the newsroom, young journalists are interested in so many things, full of ideas, energy and good vibes, but they need some good leadership from our side. We need to channel that to make them grow and to make our journalism grow. 

This interview was conducted as part of the study titled “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”, conducted for Wiener Zeitung Media Group by Jana Koch and myself. You can find more information and the full study here.

Posted on

“No one is asking for more content. They are just asking for it in different formats and different styles”

The “NextGen News” project by Knight Lab and FT Strategies belongs among the largest qualitative endeavors to uncover news consumption patterns and preferences by young people across the globe. So far, two reports have been published, the latest one discussion habits by young news consumers in the US, Brazil, India, Nigeria, and the UK. For our study, we interviewed George Montagu who led the project for FT Strategies until December 2025.  

FT Strategies is spearheading the international Young Audiences Initiative and in 2024 published a pathbreaking study on young news consumers, Next Gen News. Now you are doing an update. What have your most significant findings been?

George Montagu: One finding we are excited about is the idea of reversing the journalism process. Up until now, journalism production usually goes from: you have seen something or you have an idea, you research it, you write it, you edit it, and you publish it. Now, those on the innovative end of the scale think more in terms of format first: what’s the storytelling methodology that we use with this specific audience? And then they select stories based on that format and deliver them. 

How did you find out about that? Because you talked to creators and then they told you?

Yes, we have spoken to about 70 news creators from all around the world with different sizes of following on different platforms. One of the things they talk about is that they don’t try to make the news entertaining. They don’t select stories from the mainstream news and then add their sprinkle of expertise on top. They do it the other way around. They’ve figured out a structure, a tone, a set of topics that work for their audience, and then they select stories based on that structure. Audiences love the familiarity of a repetitive structure that packages information in a way that they enjoy consuming it in.

In your 2024 study you didn’t just survey young people, you looked at what they actually did. Did you observe any discrepancies between their behaviour and what they said they did?

We didn’t see a load of difference. I genuinely think younger people don’t care. They don’t have this concept of having to be this really engaged, newsy type person. One quite interesting behaviour many young people described was that after they had seen a piece of news on social media, they substantiated it with a big news brand that they know and trust. When we did diary studies, we saw that behaviour ring true. 

Did you see differences among the countries? You covered the US, the UK, Nigeria, India, and Brazil. 

There were differences in opinion, especially towards the health of the news industry and how trustworthy the news is. But the actual types of behaviours were similar across geographies. Our hypothesis is: Where there’s less trust, people tend to go more for creators and people they trust. We recently asked 13- to 18-year-olds: ‘Where do you get the news from?’ They gave an about equal amount of time to news influencers, friends and family, and news producers. However, when we asked them: ‘Who do you trust as sources of quality information?’, news producers were mentioned much more often than friends and family, and news creators got almost twice as much trust. Just because people give someone a lot of attention doesn’t mean they trust them. 

Our research shows that at least in Austria, young people trust news brands quite a bit.

It depends. If it’s information about beauty products, then they’re going to trust the beautiful individual in front of them more. If it’s about what’s going on in Gaza, they would probably prefer a mainstream news brand. News media used to cover all these needs, but now individuals often do a much better job with certain areas of expertise. 

What in general do institutions need to know if they want to reach young people today? 

Next Gen News focuses on the tactical things that you can do in storytelling, like putting your face on camera, making it personal, talking about your family and background. But at a much bigger level, we talk about investment allocation and distribution. A couple of decades ago, newspapers would spend 40% of their revenue on printing, distribution and vans. Today, news organizations have stripped lots of that cost from their business, but they don’t invest that money in new forms of distribution, which is video, audio, newsletters, and different types of formats. I’m trying to encourage news organizations to reinvest in distribution and new formats.

Wait, are newsletters a thing with young people? 

We didn’t hear loads of young people say that they like newsletters. What they do love is notifications. They absolutely love a good notification well timed with relevant information that links them off to somewhere else. But I also advise companies to reallocate the time journalists spend. Now, they spend 80 to 90% of their time thinking, writing, researching a story, and 10% figuring out, maybe, ‘how do I put this on socials’. But what if they invested 50% in reading, researching, writing and 50% in turning this into something cool and innovative? No one’s asking for more content. They’re just asking for it in different formats and different styles. 

Many publishers talk about “young audiences” as if they were a monolith. But commercial publishers often mean people in their 30s, because before that they wouldn’t buy subscriptions anyway. 

When we at FT Strategies speak to clients, we ask, ‘what is your young audience?’ Because they differ so much. At the FT we think of 18- to 35-year-olds who are more on the ambitious end of the spectrum and interested in careers, business, finance, and politics. Some people say up to 40 or 45 is young, because it makes their numbers look better. The generalizations and the stereotypes around younger people are not helpful. This concept of them just loving short form video exclusively and spending all their time there is wrong.

If editors-in-chief invite you and give you a time slot of 15 minutes asking what they should do? What do you tell them? 

First, I would recommend giving their journalists 30% to 40% more time to think about storytelling. Second, get your talent on camera and get them building affinity with your audiences by being authentic and telling stories. Third, increase your investment in distribution. What you need is people that are producers and that think in format terms rather than in story terms and give those people the power to work with your best journalists to create storytelling that is really alive. Finally, I would say that a lot of younger audiences don’t care much for objectivity or impartiality. Don’t be afraid to give some people the room to express their opinions and perspectives, even if they’re very different from the brand. Ultimately that builds connection and it’s what people want. 

Are there also young people who say they appreciate different viewpoints? 

Younger people don’t trust any of the information that they see first-hand. They always look for another reference point. And loads of the young people that we’ve interviewed say that they rely on building their own perspectives based on what other people say or think or share. That might be comment sections, it might be their favourite commentator, it might be another publication. Out of the 70 or so creators we talked to, maybe three or four said that they agreed with the concepts of objectivity and neutrality. The 66 others said that the idea of impartiality was fundamentally flawed and impossible at a theoretical level. They also said something like: ‘My audience doesn’t come to me for boring balance; they come to me because they value me and my opinion.’

What do you think are the most common mistakes newsrooms make – apart from people sitting around a desk saying: ‘Oh, what can we write for young people?’ 

The biggest mistake is a language and tone one. There’s still this approach of writing in an old school style that is meant to impress your colleagues more than your audience, insinuating: ‘Look, how imaginative and cool I’ve written this article!’ But a normal person just wants a normal tone of voice and vocabulary that they understand. Within that there’s a misconception that you have to dumb down language and make things really simple, which doesn’t mean making it simplistic. What you then realize is that 90% of people want the simple version of the story. So, the assumption that young people’s needs are totally distinct is quite bizarre. 

How will AI shape the news consumption behaviour of young people – who are obviously much more attuned to using it already. 

Obviously, a lot of younger people are using AI discovery tools to organize and find information for themselves. But their primary use cases are copy and pasting news into a chatbot asking, ‘can you summarize this for me?’ Or ‘can you simplify this for me so that I understand it?’ News companies should be doing this themselves on their own sites, so, that people aren’t taking their content off their platform.

Last autumn, the FT published a story asking, “Have we reached peak social media?” What should publishers do if that happens?

When I’m advising a company, I’ll say: ‘Think about formats, not platforms. What are the investments that you won’t regret making in format? Don’t think like: Let’s build a massive TikTok account and invest loads of money in that but: Let’s build a great short-form video portfolio and host it on our website, on our apps, on the watch tab as the New York Times now has? I’ve spoken to people with millions of followers on TikTok starting to tell me, ‘I’m good at seeing when the tide’s going out and I think the tide’s going out.’ But if people are not spending their time on socials, they’ll be spending their time elsewhere online. Private communities and channels seem to be the primary place where people are going to go and super apps when everything will be integrated in ChatGPT.

What do you think, what are the missing conversations around young audiences and news consumption?

It’s not the missing conversation, but it’s the really hard one: how do you make money off these people? 

When we asked young Austrians for our research what they would pay for, they said that they’d pay for something really individualized. 

This scares the living daylights out of me because 100% of that can be done. And it already is being done by chatbots and will only get better. For a lot of people fulfilling their news needs will be paying for a chatbot and being able to get summarized personalized news feeds based on their interests. People increasingly won’t pay for content, they’ll just pay for stuff associated to your brand, whether that’s events or products or whatever it is. But I would be really surprised if content remains a big differentiator for someone to be willing to pay for it. 

This interview was conducted as part of the study titled “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”, commissioned by Mediengruppe Wiener Zeitung. You can find more information and the full study (in German) here.

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

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

Prof. Pattie Maes, MIT: “We don’t have to simplify everything for everybody”

Prof. Pattie Maes and her team at the MIT Media Lab conduct research on the impact of generative AI on creativity and human decision-making. Their aim is to advice AI companies on designing systems that enhance critical thinking and creativity rather than encourage cognitive offloading. The interview was led for the upcoming EBU News Report “Leading Newsrooms in the Age of Generative AI”.  

It is often said that AI can enhance people’s creativity. Research you led seems to suggest the opposite. Can you tell us about it?  

You’re referring to a study where we asked college students to write an essay and had them solve a programming problem.  

We had three different conditions: One group could use ChatGPT. Another group could only use search without the AI results at the top. And the third group did not have any tool.  

What we noticed was that the group that used ChatGPT wrote good essays, but they expressed less diversity of thought, were more similar to one another and less original. 

Because people put less effort into the task at hand? 

We have seen that in other experiments as well: people are inherently lazy. When they use AI, they don’t think as much for themselves. And as a result, you get less creative outcomes.  

It could be a problem if, say, programmers at a company all use the same co-pilot to help them with coding, they won’t come up with new ways of doing things.  

As AI data increasingly feeds new AI models, you will get more and more convergence and less improvement and innovation.  

Journalism thrives on originality. What would be your advice to media managers? 

Raising awareness can help. But it would be more useful if we built these systems differently.  

We have been building a system that helps people with writing, for example. But instead of doing the writing for you, it engages you, like a good colleague or editor, by critiquing your writing, and occasionally suggesting that you approach something from a different angle or strengthen a claim.  

It’s important that AI design engages people in contributing to a solution rather that automating things for them.  

Sounds like great advice for building content management systems. 

Today’s off-the-shelf systems use an interface that encourages people to say: “write me an essay on Y, make sure it’s this long and includes these points of view.”  

These systems are designed to provide a complete result. We have grammar and spelling correctors in our editing systems, but we could have AI built into editing software that says, “over here your evidence or argument is weak.”  

It could encourage the person to use their own brain and be creative. I believe we can design systems that let us benefit from human and artificial intelligence.  

But isn’t the genie already out of the bottle? If I encouraged students who use ChatGPT to use a version that challenges them, they’d probably say: “yeah, next time when I don’t have all these deadlines”.   

We should design AI systems that are optimised for different goals and contexts, like an AI that is designed like a great editor, or an AI that acts like a great teacher.  

A teacher doesn’t give you the answers to all the problems, because the whole point is not the output the person produces, it is that they have learned something in the process.  

But certainly, if you have access to one AI that makes you work harder and another AI that just does the work for you, it is tempting to use that second one. 

Agentic AI is a huge topic. You did research on AI and agents as early as 1995. How has your view on this evolved since? 

Back when I developed software agents that help you with tasks, we didn’t have anything like today’s large language models. They were built by hand for a specific application domain and were able to do some minimal learning from the user.  

Today’s systems are supposedly AGI (artificial general intelligence) or close to it and are billed as systems that can do everything and anything for us.  

But what we are discovering in our studies is that they do not behave the way people behave. They don’t make the same choices, don’t have that deeper knowledge of the context, that self-awareness and self-critical reflection on their actions that people have.  

A huge problem with agentic systems will be that we think they are intelligent and behave like us, but that they don’t. And it’s not just because they hallucinate. 

But we want to believe they behave like humans? 

Let me give you an example. When I hired a new administrative assistant, I didn’t immediately give him full autonomy to do things on my behalf.  

I formed a mental model of him based on the original interview and his résumé. I saw “oh, he has done a lot of stuff with finance, but he doesn’t have much experience with travel planning.” So when some travel had to be booked, I would tell him, “Let me know the available choices so that I can tell you what I value and help you make a choice.”  

Over time my mental model of the assistant develops, and his model about my needs and preferences. We basically learn about each other. It is a much more interactive type of experience than with AI agents.  

These agents are not built to check and say, “I’m not so confident making this decision. So, let me get some input from my user.” It’s a little bit naïve that AI agents are being portrayed as “they are ready to be deployed, and they will be wonderful and will be able to do anything.”  

It might be possible to build agents that have the right level of self-awareness, reflection and judgment, but I have not heard many developers openly think about those issues. And it will require a lot of research to get it right.  

Is there anything else your research reveals about the difficulties with just letting AI do things for us? 

We have done studies on decision making with AI. What you expect is that humans make better decisions if they are supported by an AI that is trained on a lot of data in a particular domain.  

But studies showed that was not what happened. In our study, we let people decide whether some newspaper headline was fake news or real news. What we found was when it’s literally just a click of a button to get the AI’s opinion, many people just use the AI’s output.  

There’s less deep engagement and thinking about the problem because it’s so convenient. Other researchers got similar results with experiments on doctors evaluating medical diagnoses supported by AI, for example. 

You are telling us that expectations in AI-support are overblown? 

I am an AI optimist. I do think it is possible to integrate AI into our lives in a way that it has positive effects. But we need to reflect more about the right ways to integrate it.  

In the case of the newspaper headlines we did a study that showed that if AI first engages you in thinking about a headline and asks you a question about it, it improves people’s accuracy, and they don’t accept the AI advice blindly.  

The interface can help with encouraging people to be a little bit more mindful and critical.  

This sounds like it would just need a little technical fix.  

It is also about how AI is portrayed. We talk about these systems as artificial forms of intelligence. We constantly are told that we’re so close to AGI. These systems don’t just converse in a human-like ways, but with an abundance of confidence.  

All of these factors trick us into perceiving them as more intelligent, more capable and more human than they really are. But they are more what Emily Bender, a professor at the University of Washington, called “stochastic parrots”.  

LLMs (large language models) are like a parrot that has just heard a lot of natural language by hearing people speak and can predict and imitate it pretty well. But that parrot doesn’t understand what it’s talking about.  

Presenting these systems as parrots rather than smart assistants would already help by reminding people to constantly think “Oh, I have to be mindful. These systems hallucinate. They don’t really understand. They don’t know everything.”  

We work with some AI companies on some of these issues. For example, we are doing a study with OpenAI on companion bots and how many people risk becoming overly attached to chat bots.  

These companies are in a race to get to AGI first, by raising the most money and building the biggest models. But I think awareness is growing that if we want AI to ultimately be successful, we have to think carefully about the way we integrate it in people’s lives.  

In the media industry there’s a lot of hope that AI could help journalism to become more inclusive and reach broader audiences. Do you see a chance for this to happen? 

These hopes are well-founded. We built an AI-based system for kids and older adults who may have trouble processing language that the average adult can process.  

The system works like an intra-language translator – it takes a video and translates it into simpler language while still preserving the meaning.  

There are wonderful opportunities to customize content to the abilities and needs of the particular user. But at the same time, we need to keep in mind that the more we personalize things, the more everybody would be in their own bubble, especially if we also bias the reporting to their particular values or interests.  

It’s important that we still have some shared media, shared news and a shared language, rather than creating this audience of one where people can no longer converse with others about things in the world that we should be talking about. 

This connects to your earlier argument: customisation could make our brains lazy.  

It is possible to build AI systems that have the opposite effect and challenge the user a little bit. This would be like being a parent who unconsciously adjusts their language for the current ability of their child and gradually introduces more complex language and ideas over time.  

We don’t have to simplify everything for everybody. We need to think about what AI will do to people and their social and emotional health and what artificial intelligence will do to natural human intelligence, and ultimately to our society.  

And we should have talks about this with everybody. Right now, our AI future is decided by AI engineers and entrepreneurs, which in the long run will prove to be a mistake. 

The interview was first published by the EBU on 1st April 2025.

Posted on

Peter Archer, BBC: “What AI doesn’t change is who we are and what we are here to do”

The BBC’s Director of Generative AI talks about the approach of his organization to developing AI tools, experiences with their usage and the rampant inaccuracies AI assistants produce – and what is needed to remedy them. This interview was conducted for the EBU News Report “Leading Newsrooms in the Age of Generative AI” that will be published by the European Broadcasting Union.

BBC research recently revealed disturbing inaccuracies when AI agents provided news content and drew on BBC material. About every second piece had issues. Did you expect this?  

We expected to see a degree of inaccuracy, but perhaps not as high as we found. We were also interested in the range of different errors where AI assistants struggle including factual errors, but also lack of context, and the conflation of opinion and fact.

It was also interesting that none of the four assistants that we looked at – ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity – were much better or worse than any of the others, which suggests that there is an issue with the underlying technology.  

Has this outcome changed your view on AI as a tool for journalism?  

With respect to our own use of AI, it demonstrates the need to be aware of the limitations of AI tools.

We’re being conservative about the use of generative AI tools in the newsroom and our internal guidance is that generative AI should not be used directly for creating content for news, current affairs or factual content.

But we have identified specific use cases like summaries and reformatting that we think can bring real value.

We are not currently allowing third parties to scrape our content to be included in AI applications. We allowed ChatGPT and the other AI assistants to access our site solely for the purpose of this research. But, as our findings show, making content available can lead to distortion of that content.  

You emphasised working with the AI platforms was critical to tackle this challenge. Will you implement internal consequences, too? 

Generative AI poses a new challenge – because AI is being used by third parties to create content, like summaries of the news.

I think this new intersection of technology and content will require close working between publishers and technology companies to both help ensure the accuracy of content but also to make the most of the immense potential of generative AI technology.  

So, you think the industry should have more self-confidence? 

Publishers, and the creative and media industries more broadly, are critical to ensuring generative AI is used responsibly. The two sectors – AI and creative industries – can work together positively, combining editorial expertise and understanding of the audience with the technology itself.

More broadly, the media industry should develop an industry position – what it thinks on key issues. The EBU can be a really helpful part of that. In the UK, regulators like Ofcom are interested in the AI space.

We need a constructive conversation on how we collectively make sure that our information ecosystem is robust and trusted. The media sector is central to that.

On the research, we will repeat the study, hopefully including other newsrooms. Because I’m fascinated to see two things: Do the assistants’ performances change over time? And do newsrooms of smaller languages see the same issues or maybe more? 

Do you think the media industry in general is behaving responsibly towards AI? Or what do you observe when you look outside of your BBC world?  

On the whole yes, and it’s great to see different perspective as well as areas of common interest. For example, I think everybody is now looking at experiences like chat assistants.

There’s so much to do it would be fantastic to identify common priorities across the EBU group, because working on AI can be hard and costly and where we can collaborate we should.

That said, we have seen some pretty high-profile mistakes in the industry – certainly in the first 12 to 18 months after ChatGPT launched – and excitement occasionally outpaced responsible use.

It’s also very helpful to see other organizations testing some of the boundaries because it helps us and other public service media organizations calibrate where we are and what we should be doing.  

There are huge hopes in the industry to use generative AI to make journalism more inclusive, transcend format boundaries to attract different audiences. Are these hopes justified?  

I’m pretty bullish. The critical thing is that we stay totally aligned to our mission, our standards, and our values. AI changes a lot, but what it doesn’t change is who we are and what we’re here to do.

One of the pilots that we’re looking at how to scale is taking audio content, in this example, a football broadcast, and using AI to transcribe and create a summary and then a live text page.

Live text updates and pages on football games are incredibly popular with our audiences, but currently there’s only so many games we can create a live page for. The ability to use AI to scale that so we can provide a live text page for every football game we cover on radio would be amazing.

One of the other things that we’re doing is going to the next level with our own BBC large language model that reflects the BBC style and standards. This approach to constitutional AI is really exciting. It’s being led out of the BBC’s R&D team – we’re incredibly lucky to have them.  

Do you have anything fully implemented yet?  

The approach that we’ve taken with generative AI is to do it in stages. In a number of areas, like the football example, we are starting small with working, tactical solutions that we can increase the use of while we work on productionised versions in parallel.

Another example is using AI to create subtitles on BBC Sounds. Again, here we’ve got an interim solution that we will use to provide more subtitles to programmes while in parallel we create a productionised version that is that is much more robust and easier to scale across all audio.

A key consideration is creating capabilities that can work across multiple use cases not just one, and that takes time.  

What is your position towards labelling?  

We have a very clear position: We will label the use of AI where there is any risk that the audience might be materially misled.

This means any AI output that could be mistaken for real is clearly labelled. This is particularly important in news where we will also be transparent about where AI has a material or significant impact on the content or in its production – for example if an article is translated using AI.

We’re being conservative because the trust of our audience is critical.  

What’s the internal mood towards AI? The BBC is a huge organization, and you are probably working in an AI bubble. But do you have any feel for how people are coming on board?  

One of the key parts of my role is speaking to teams and divisions and explaining what AI is and isn’t and the BBC’s approach.

Over the last 12 months, we’ve seen a significant increase in uptake of AI tools like Microsoft Copilot and many staff are positive about how AI can help them in their day-to-day work.

There are of course lots of questions and concerns, particularly as things move quickly in AI.

A key thing is encouraging staff to play with the tools we have so they can understand the opportunities and limitations. Things like Microsoft Copilot are now available across the business, also Adobe Firefly, GitHub Copilot, very shortly ChatGPT.

But it’s important we get the balance right and listen carefully to those who have concerns about the use of AI.

We are proceeding very carefully because at the heart of the BBC is creativity and human-led journalism with very high standards of editorial. We are not going to put that at risk.  

What’s not talked about enough in the context of generative AI and journalism? 

We shouldn’t underestimate the extent to which the world is changing around us. AI assistants, AI overviews are here to stay.

That is a fundamental shift in our information landscape. In two or three years’ time, many may be getting their news directly from Google or Perplexity.

As our research showed, there are real reasons for concern. And there is this broader point around disinformation. We’ve all seen the Pope in a puffer jacket, right? And we’ve all seen AI images of floods in Europe and conflict in Gaza.

But we’re also starting to see the use of AI at a very local level that doesn’t get much exposure but could nevertheless ruin lives.

As journalists, we need to be attuned to the potential misinformation on our doorstep that is hard to spot.  

This interview was published by the EBU on 26th March 2025.

Posted on

Climate Journalism – What works?

While the war in Ukraine and the pandemic have taken up a lot of space and energy in newsrooms recently, there is hardly any issue that will define our future more than the climate crisis: how it’s reported and received by audiences worldwide and how journalism can spur the debate on how to rebuild our economies in a sustainable way. 

I’m lead author of the upcoming report “Climate Journalism That Works – Between Knowledge and Impact” – that will be published in full in Spring 2023. Working with me on this have been Katherine Dunn from the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, and Felix Simon from the Oxford Internet Institute. The report will look at how to craft journalism about climate change that is likely to have an impact and to resonate with audiences and how to restructure newsrooms accordingly. It will also include best practice case studies and Q&As from thought leaders and influencers on what actually works.

These are some key preliminary findings that we presented at the EBU’s annual News Assembly on 12th October 2022:

•    Facts alone don’t help. More facts are not necessarily more convincing
•    The messenger is often more important than the message. It is a matter of credibility with the audience.
•    It is important to make climate impact part of all the beats in a newsroom – rather than confine it to a dedicated climate desk. All journalists need basic climate literacy.
•    There is no one-size-fits-all model for newsroom organization, language to be used or visual policy. Everyone has to make it fit their resources, values, culture.
•    Images matter a lot and the formats need to fit the particular audience
•    Leaders experience little resistance when implementing climate strategies. When leadership doesn’t make the topic a priority, a climate desk might flourish but the rest of the journalism will stay the same. 
•    The media has a hard time living up to their own standards when it comes to measuring carbon footprints or making newsrooms more sustainable. Travel is a pain point. 
•    There is a lot of material out there on how to communicate the climate challenge successfully, particularly from the field of communication studies. Newsrooms just haven’t used it yet.

Academics doing research on climate communication have discovered: Stories are more likely to work if they are related to the here and know instead of to the distant future, tied to a local context, convey agency, are constructive or solutions-oriented, and envision a sustainable future instead of emphasizing sacrifice, crisis, destruction, loss, and disaster. While doom scrolling might capture attention for a brief moment, it also risks to drive people into news avoidance.   

We also uncovered some indicators on how climate change and the environment resonate particularly with younger audiences – and how focusing on sustainable issues could help public service media speak directly to this audience and solve some of their own problems in the process.

Interestingly the same focus also appeals to young staffers – and attracts young talent – in newsrooms themselves. And there is evidence that these topics energize veteran news reporters and help promote overall diversity. They make journalism broader, more constructive, and help to break the dominance of the “he said, she said”-type of political reporting that hasn’t served audiences too well anyway.  

We will cover all this and more in the next News Report. But you don’t have to wait that long to read our findings. We will be publishing selected Q&As with media leaders, climate journalists and experts in advance of publication. You can read Wolfgang Blau’s take on some of the challenges – and opportunities – for public service newsrooms.

Climate Journalism That Works – Between Knowledge and Impact by Dr Alexandra Borchardt, Katherine Dunn and Felix Simon, will be published on 1 March 2023. This blog was first published on the EBU’s homepage.
 

 
 
Posted on

Free speech in the digital age – a constructive approach

Digital platforms have fundamentally changed the way we communicate, express and inform ourselves. This requires new rules to safeguard democratic values. As the Digital Services Act (DSA) awaits adoption by the EU, Natali Helberger, Alexandra Borchardt and Cristian Vaccari explain here how the Council of Europe’s recently adopted recommendation “on the impact of digital technologies on freedom of expression” can complement the implementation of the DSA, which aims to update rules governing digital services in the EU. All three were members of the Council’s expert committee that was set up for this purpose, working in 2020 and 2021.

When Elon Musk announced his original plan to buy Twitter and, in his words, restore freedom of speech on the platform, EC Commissioner Thierry Breton quickly reminded him of the Digital Services Act (DSA). According to the DSA, providers of what it defines as ‘Very Large Online Platforms’ will have to ‘pay due regard to freedom of expression and information, including media freedom and pluralism.’ They will have to monitor their recommendation and content moderation algorithms for any systemic risks to the fundamental rights and values that constitute Europe. A video of Musk and Breton in Austin, Texas, shows Musk eagerly nodding and assuring Breton that “this all is very well aligned with what we are planning.”

But what exactly is well aligned here? What does it mean for social media platforms, such as Twitter, to pay due regard to freedom of expression, media freedom and pluralism? While the DSA enshrines a firm commitment to freedom of expression, it only provides limited concrete guidance on what freedom of expression means in a platform context. So when Musk was nodding along like an eager schoolboy, whilst his intentions may have been sincere there is also a realistic chance that he had no concrete idea of what exactly he was agreeing to.

The Council of Europe’s recently adopted recommendation “on the impact of digital technologies on freedom of expression” provides some much-needed guidance.

The leading fundamental rights organisation in Europe

The Council of Europe is the largest international fundamental rights organisation in Europe. Distinct from the European Union, the Council’s EU member states and 20 more European states develop joint visions on European values and fundamental freedoms, as enshrined in the European Convention of Human Rights and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Article 10 of the ECHRdefines freedom of expression as “the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

European media laws and policies have been significantly shaped by the Conventions, recommendations and guidelines of the Council. One of the most recent expert committees of the Council was tasked with preparing a recommendation on the impacts of digital technologies on freedom of expression, as well as guidelineson best practices for content moderation by internet intermediaries. The guidelines are already described here and here. In this post, the rapporteurs and chair of the Committee briefly summarise the key takeaways from the recommendation (for a full list of experts involved in the making of the recommendation, please see here). In so doing, we will explain the guidelines and address the question of how they complement and add to the recently agreed on DSA.

A value-based approach

The recommendation lays down principles to ensure that “digital technologies serve rather than curtail” freedom of expression and develops proposals to address the adverse impacts and enhance the positive effects of digital technology on freedom of expression. Here we note a first difference with the DSA. The DSA takes a risk-based approach: for example, Art. 26 requires Very Large Online Platforms to identify the risks and dangers that their recommendation and content moderation algorithms pose for fundamental rights and society. As such it focuses on the negative implications of technology.

In contrast, the Council of Europe Recommendation takes a value-based approach. It first clarifies that these technologies have an essential, positive role in a democracy by opening up the public sphere to more and diverse voices. According to the Council, the “digital infrastructures of communication in a democratic society” need to be designed “to promote human rights, openness, interoperability, transparency, and fair competition”. This value-based approach to digital technology acknowledges the need to mitigate risks, but goes one step further and demands that states, companies, and civil society actors work together to realize technology’s positive contribution to democracy and fundamental rights. It is vital to notice this difference, as both a risk-based and value- and opportunity-based approach will set the agenda for research and innovation.

Digital infrastructure design and the creation of counter-power

Where the DSA takes an application or tool-based approach, the recommendation adopts a broader media ecology perspective. The DSA addresses algorithmic content moderation, news recommenders and curation first and foremost as related to specific digital tools and applications. The recommendation takes a different approach and acknowledges that all those digital tools and applications together form the wider digital communication infrastructure that democracies rely on. According to the recommendation, these digital communication infrastructures should be designed to proactively promote human rights, openness, accessibility, interoperability, transparency and fair competition.

One key recommendation that arises from this media ecology view of digital technology is for states to proactively invest in and create the conditions to enhance economic competition and democratic pluralism in and on digital infrastructures. Other key recommendations include stimulating the digital transformation of news organisations, promoting open-source software, and investing in public service media. The recommendation also explicitly stresses the essential democratic role of local and regional media and the need to tackle concentration in terms of both economic dominance and, crucially, the power to shape public opinion. The recently adopted  Council of Europe recommendation on creating a favourable environment for quality journalism complements the document and provides more detail in this particular area.

Transparency, accountability and redress as a joint responsibility of states and internet intermediaries

Transparency and explainability are essential in both the recommendation and the DSA. Like the DSA, the recommendation requires internet intermediaries to provide adequate transparency on the design and implementation of their terms of service and their key policies for content moderation, such as information regarding removal, recommendation, amplification, promotion, downranking, monetisation, and distribution, particularly concerning their outcomes for freedom of expression. The recommendation highlights that such information must ensure transparency on different levels and with different goals, including empowering users, enabling third-party auditing and oversight, and informing independent efforts to counter harmful content online. In other words, transparency is a multi-faceted and multi-player concept.

Having said that, whereas the DSA places the burden of providing transparency in the first place on platforms, the Council of Europe’s recommendation also ascribes responsibility to states and regulators. It advocates that states and regulators “should ensure that all necessary data are generated and published to enable any analysis necessary to guarantee meaningful transparency on how internet intermediaries’ policies and their implementation affect freedom of expression among the general public and vulnerable subjects.” States should also “assist private actors and civil society organisations in the development of independent institutional mechanisms that ensure impartial and comprehensive verification of the completeness and accuracy of data made available by internet intermediaries.” This approach complements the DSA in at least two respects: it assigns states a responsibility to ensure the accessibility and usability of such information, and it supports the development of independent systems of quality control (rather than relying exclusively on the mechanisms of Art. 31 DSA).

The extensive transparency mechanisms must be seen in the context of the recommendations on contestability. Transparency can be a value in itself, but as a regulatory tool, transparency obligations are primarily intended to empower subjects to take action. Consequently, the recommendation includes an obligation for states to ensure that any person whose freedom of expression is limited due to restrictions imposed by internet intermediaries must be able to seek timely and effective redress. Interestingly, the recommendation also extends this right to the news media: news providers whose editorial freedom is threatened due to terms of service or content moderation policies must be able to seek timely and effective redress mechanisms, too.

Actionable and empowering media literacy

The Council of Europe has a long tradition of supporting and developing media literacy policies, and this recommendation is no exception. The recommendation promotes data and digital literacy to help users understand the conditions under which digital technologies affect freedom of expression, how information of varying quality is procured, distributed and processed and, importantly, what individuals can do to protect their rights. As in other domains, the recommendation stresses the positive role that states can play. States should enable users to engage in informational self-determination and exercise greater control over the data they generate, the inferences derived from such data, and the content they can access. Although it is undeniable that the complexity of digital information environments places a higher burden on citizens to select, filter, and evaluate the content they encounter, the recommendation aims to promote processes and practices that reduce this burden by enhancing user empowerment and control.

Independent research for evidence-based rulemaking

In current regulatory proposals, there is a growing recognition of the role that independent research must play. Among other things, research can help to:

  • identify (systemic) risks to fundamental rights, society and democracy as a result of the use of algorithmic tools,
  • monitor compliance with the rules and responsibilities that pertain to those using those tools,
  • develop insights on how to design technologies, institutions and governance frameworks to promote and realise fundamental rights and public values.

There is also growing recognition of the responsibility of states and platforms to create the conditions for independent researchers to be able to play such important role. The provisions in Art. 31 of the DSA on access to research data are an example of this new awareness.

The CoE recommendation, too, emphasises and requires that internet intermediaries must enable researchers to access the kinds of high-quality data that are necessary to investigate the individual and societal impacts of digital technologies on fundamental rights.  The recommendation goes one step further than the DSA, however, and  also emphasises the broader conditions that need to be fulfilled for independent researchers to play such a role. Besides calling for states to provide adequate funding for such research, the recommendation stresses the need to create secure environments that facilitate secure data access and analysis, as well as measures to protect the independence of researchers.

It is worth noting that the recommendation also suggests a new, more general research exception: that data lawfully collected for other purposes by internet intermediaries may be processed to conduct rigorous and independent research under the conditions that such research is developed with the goal of safeguarding substantial public interest in understanding and governing the implications of digital technologies for human rights. Such a research exception goes beyond the scope of Art. 31 DSA and addresses the problem that data access could be restricted because the internet intermediaries’ terms of use and privacy policies users agree to often fail to include explicit derogations for re-use of the data for research.

Conclusions

In sum, the Council of Europe’s recommendation offers a new vision of what it means to safeguard and at the same time expand freedom of expression in the digital age. There is a fine line between regulating speech and making sure that everyone gets a voice. The recommendation offers several actionable suggestions concerning the design of digital communication infrastructures, transparency and accountability, user awareness and empowerment, and support for the societal role of independent research. As such, the guidelines can be an essential resource for policymakers, civil society, academics, and internet intermediaries such as Google, Meta, Twitter or TikTok.

The latter companies are confronted with a challenging problem: prominent and ambitious regulatory proposals such as the DSA will require internet intermediaries to understand and account for the human rights implications of their technologies, even though they are not the classical addressees of human rights law. Fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression, at least in Europe, apply in the first place to the relationship between states and citizens. Mandating that private actors such as internet intermediaries pay due regard to abstract rights such as the right to freedom of expression raises a host of difficult interpretational questions. More generally, the current European Commission’s focus on requiring the application of digital technology in line with fundamental rights and European values is laudable. Still, there is only limited expertise on how to interpret and implement fundamental rights law in the European Union, which started as, and still is primarily, an economic community. The Council of Europe’s recommendations and guidelines have an important complementary role to play in clarifying what respect for fundamental rights entails in the digital age and suggesting concrete actions to realise this vision.

This article, first published on 14th September 2022 , reflects the views of the authors and not those of the Media@LSE blog nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Posted on

What’s wrong with the News?

The rise of data analytics has made journalists and their editors confident that they know what the people want. Why, then, did almost one-third of respondents to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report say that they regularly avoid news altogether?

The British public can’t get enough news about Brexit – at least, that’s what news platforms’ data analytics say. But, according to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report, 71% of the British public tries to avoid media coverage of the United Kingdom’s impending departure from the European Union. This disparity, which can be seen in a wide range of areas, raises serious questions about news organizations’ increasingly data-driven approach to reporting.

The rise of data analytics has made journalists and their editors confident that they know what people want. And for good reason: with a large share of news consumed on the Internet, media platforms know exactly which stories readers open, how much they read before getting bored, what they share with their friends, and the type of content that entices them to sign up for a subscription.

Such data indicate, for example, that audiences are interested in extraordinary investigative journalism, diet and personal-finance advice, and essays about relationships and family. They prefer stories with a personal angle – say, detailing an affected individual’s fate – rather than reports on ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or city hall coverage. And they are drawn to sensational stories – such as about US President Donald Trump’s scandals and antics – under “clickbait” headlines.

But if newsrooms were really giving audiences what they wanted, it seems unlikely that almost one-third (32%) of respondents in the Digital News Report, the world’s largest ongoing survey of online news consumption, would report that they regularly avoid news altogether. But they did, and that figure is up three percentage points from two years ago.

The most common explanation for avoiding the news media, given by 58% of those who do, is that following it has a negative effect on their mood. Many respondents also cited a sense of powerlessness.

Moreover, only 16% of participants approve of the tone used in news coverage, while 39% disapprove. Young people, in particular, seem fed up with the negativity bias that has long been regarded as a sure-fire way to attract audiences. For many, that bias feels disempowering. Conversations indicate that the problem is compounded for young parents, who want to believe that the world will be good to their children. Younger generations also feel consuming news should be more entertaining and less of a chore.

One reason for the disconnect between the data and people’s self-reported relationship with the news media may be the “guilty pleasure” effect: people have an appetite for voyeurism, but would prefer not to admit it, sometimes even to themselves. So, even as they click on articles about grisly crimes or celebrity divorces, they may say that they want more “quality news.”

 

When newsrooms indulge readers’ worst impulses, the consequences are far-reaching. Media are integral to support accountability by anyone wielding power or influence, and to mobilize civic engagement. Democracies, in particular, depend on voters being well informed about pressing issues. News organizations thus have a responsibility to report on serious topics, from political corruption to climate change, even if they are unpleasant.

That does not mean that readers’ complaints about media’s negativity bias should be disregarded. On the contrary, if people are to be motivated to confront challenges that are shaping their lives, they should not be made to feel powerless.

This is where so-called solutions journalism comes in. By balancing information about what needs changing with true stories about positive change, news organizations can fulfill their responsibility both to inform and to spur progress. This means occasionally recognizing that over the long term, living standards have improved globally.

Reconnecting with audiences will also require media organizations to broaden their perspectives. In much of the West, it is largely white, male, middle-class journalists who decide what to cover and how. This limits news media’s ability to represent diverse societies fairly and accurately.

In fact, only 29% of Digital News Report respondents agreed that the topics the news media choose “feel relevant” to them. A joint study by the Reuters Institute and the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, indicates that the key to increasing this share is to increase diversity in newsrooms.

At the same time, news media need to do a better job of contextualizing and otherwise explaining the news. While 62% of Digital News Report respondents feel that media keep them apprised of events, only half believe news outlets are doing enough to help them understand what is happening. At a time when nearly one-third of people think that there is simply too much news being reported, the solution seems clear: do less, better.

This means listening to readers, not just studying the data analytics. It means balancing good news with bad news, and offering clarifying information when needed. It also means representing diverse perspectives. Media organizations that do not make these changes will continue to lose trust and relevance. That is hardly a sound strategy for convincing consumers that their work is worth paying for.

This commentary was published by Project Syndicate on September 11, 2019