In Journalism Practice, Emma Verhoeven and Sarah Van Leuven examined generative AI’s impact on journalism employment and found that rather than replacing journalists, it reshapes skills via reskilling and deskilling.
Generative AI is beginning to take over parts of journalistic work, from spotting stories to producing content, raising both hopes and anxieties about the future of the profession. This study looks at how it is changing work conditions and job security through interviews with key actors in newsrooms in Belgium. The broader picture is more complex than simple narratives of disruption, as long-standing economic pressures and newsroom practices also shape these changes.
In newsrooms, AI is settling into everyday workflows without overturning them. Large media groups have built dedicated teams and secure systems, weaving AI into content management tools that suggest headlines, summaries, or handle transcription and translation. Smaller outlets move more loosely, often relying on free tools, while a few draw firm ethical lines and restrict AI to research support. In general, automation remains limited in scope and tightly supervised, even if that supervision is uneven in practice.
The authors found that fears of widespread job loss have eased as AI’s limits have become clearer. Journalists mostly use it to offload repetitive work, which saves time but does not yet translate into measurable efficiency gains. Managers do not rule out small staffing adjustments over time, though not on a large scale. The more immediate pressure falls on freelancers, whose roles can be quietly reduced. Fully automated publishing exists only in narrow, data-driven areas like sports results or real estate listings, where structured inputs make automation feasible and where such coverage would otherwise not necessarily exist.
At the same time, AI is creating new roles and reshaping existing ones. News organisations are appointing editors with hybrid responsibilities, bridging editorial judgment and technological implementation. In some cases, journalists specialise in crafting prompts and refining how AI tools are used, a task framed less as technical work than as an extension of editorial thinking. These developments open new career paths but also deepen inequalities between large, well-resourced organisations and smaller outlets struggling to keep up.
Nevertheless, certain skills are losing ground. Routine language tasks, basic editing, and parts of distribution are increasingly automated, while expectations shift toward creativity, judgment, and adaptability. The picture that emerges is not one of sudden disruption but of gradual reorganization, shaped as much by long-standing economic pressures and newsroom hierarchies as by the technology itself.
Stepping back, the study suggests that generative AI is not transforming journalism as dramatically as often claimed. Its effects remain modest and uneven, more an extension of long-running digital shifts than a break with them. Direct job losses are rare, but change seeps in through hiring freezes and unfilled vacancies, quietly narrowing opportunities over time. Skills tied to judgment, verification, and human storytelling gain importance and journalists lean into this distinction, emphasising what machines cannot replicate.
The research also uncovered that old tensions persist. The promise of freeing up time for deeper reporting coexists with fears of cuts and heavier workloads, much as it did a decade ago. For some, especially freelancers and newcomers, the risks are sharper. Access to training and tools is uneven, competition intensifies, and entry-level pathways may shrink as basic tasks disappear. Newsrooms respond by pushing staff toward new skills or roles, though this adaptation depends heavily on resources.
Verhoeven, E., & Van Leuven, S. (2026). Between Anticipation and Impact: Assessing Generative AI’s Influence on Journalistic Labor and Employment. Journalism Practice, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2026.2692441
In a research article in Journalism Studies, Jacob L. Nelson and Seth C. Lewis argue that transparency alone cannot rebuild trust; news organisations must adopt capital transparency, which includes openly addressing profit motives and acknowledging tensions between financial interests and public service.
Trust in journalism has declined sharply worldwide, making it harder for people to stay informed and for news organisations to sustain themselves. In response, audiences increasingly turn to their own forms of “fact-checking,” often reinforcing existing beliefs and deepening exposure to misinformation. While transparency in reporting processes has been promoted as a remedy, its impact remains limited because it does not address a central concern: the perception that journalism is driven more by profit than public interest.
Public attitudes range from healthy scepticism, which encourages critical engagement, to corrosive cynicism, which dismisses journalism altogether. This shift towards cynicism is fuelled by beliefs that journalists are influenced by political bias and, increasingly, by economic pressures. Many people suspect that news is shaped to attract attention and generate revenue, a concern not entirely unfounded given the growing entanglement of editorial and commercial priorities.
Although distrust is influenced by broader social and psychological factors, perceptions of journalists’ competing interests play a significant role. Rebuilding trust therefore requires acknowledging these tensions openly and demonstrating that professional integrity can coexist with financial realities, rather than denying the pressures that shape news production.
The idea that greater transparency can restore trust in journalism has gained wide support, especially as news organisations face growing scepticism and accusations of bias or “fake news.” Transparency typically involves explaining how stories are selected, how reporting decisions are made, how journalists interact with audiences, and how errors are corrected. The underlying belief is that by opening up these processes, news organisations can demonstrate accountability and reinforce their credibility. Many outlets have embraced this approach, publishing explanations of their reporting methods and editorial guidelines to rebuild their relationship with the public.
However, research has consistently shown that these efforts have had little or no meaningful effect on public trust. In some cases, transparency produces only modest improvements, and in others it can even deepen scepticism. Several explanations help account for this. Audiences may simply not encounter transparency efforts, particularly as news consumption shifts to social media, where such explanations are less visible. Furthermore, those who already distrust journalism may dismiss transparency as self-serving or insincere. There is also the risk that transparency is used strategically, revealing only favourable aspects of journalistic practice while concealing more problematic elements, which can make it resemble a form of promotion rather than genuine openness.
A more fundamental limitation is that current transparency efforts focus almost entirely on how journalism is produced, while neglecting a key source of distrust: the perception that news organisations prioritise profit over truth or public service. This is where the concept of capital transparency becomes central.
Capital transparency calls for openness about the financial structures underpinning journalism, including ownership, funding sources, and the economic pressures shaping editorial decisions. By revealing how money influences news production, journalists can address suspicions that otherwise are left unchallenged.
This approach goes beyond routine disclosures, encouraging journalists and organisations to explain how they maintain independence despite financial constraints and potential conflicts of interest. It may involve acknowledging the limits of the traditional “firewall” between editorial and business operations and being open about instances where that boundary is strained.
While such honesty could expose uncomfortable realities and may not improve trust in the industry as a whole, it has the potential to build credibility at the level of journalists, distinguish genuinely public-serving outlets from those driven primarily by profit, and consequently, improve public trust in public interest journalism.
Nelson, J. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2026). Show Them the Money: The Case for Capital Transparency in Journalism. Journalism Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2026.2655667
In a study in Journalism and Media, Najm A. Kh. Alhatimi Aleessawi, Rahima Aissani, Jumana Mohammad Ali Moh’d Rsheidat and Mohammed Habes compare media consumption and communication preferences across generations. They found that Gen X favours news sites, Y social media and websites, while Gen Z prioritizes social media and multimedia.
Rapid shifts in information and communication technologies have significantly reshaped how people communicate and consume media, turning communication into a multi-directional, interactive process within digital environments. These changes have led to diverse media behaviours across age groups. However, existing research has mostly focused on single platforms or single age groups, often using quantitative approaches that measure usage rates rather than exploring motivations and interaction patterns. This leaves a gap in understanding how and why different generations engage with media in distinct ways.
Generational categories are used as a framework to interpret differences in values and behaviours shaped by shared social, economic, and technological experiences. Generations X, Y, and Z are distinguished by their varying relationships with technology, from gradual adaptation to digital tools in older cohorts to lifelong immersion in digital environments among younger groups. Generation X tends to combine traditional and digital media use, Millennials (Gen Y) grew up with early internet technologies and use a blend of digital communication in various aspects of life, while Gen Z is highly skilled in digital environments and relies heavily on social media. A younger age group is also emerging, but it is not included in this analysis.
The authors used a qualitative design to explore lived experiences through focus group discussions involving participants from the three generations. They analysed the data using thematic analysis, allowing patterns in communication preferences, media consumption, and interaction styles to be identified and compared across groups. Reliability was strengthened through independent coding, triangulation, member checking, and reflexive practices to minimise bias and enhance trustworthiness.
The findings show distinct generational patterns in media use, content preferences, and communication styles. Across all three generations, websites and social media are central sources of news and information, although their relative importance differs. Gen X relies most on online news sites, with social media and television also playing a role, reflecting a blend of traditional and digital habits. Gen Y places strong emphasis on social media alongside websites, valuing speed, accessibility, and reliability, while still engaging with television and other formats. Gen Z shows the strongest dependence on social media, using it as the primary gateway to news, followed by websites, with traditional media such as television and newspapers playing only a secondary role. This reflects a broader shift towards fast, mobile, and visually engaging platforms, while some trust in traditional media remains for credibility.
In terms of content, political issues are consistently important across all groups, but other interests vary. Gen X demonstrates a broad focus that includes social and cultural themes alongside politics, as well as occasional interest in science and technology. Gen Y combines political and social concerns with cultural and sports interests, often linking political topics to their broader social impact. Gen Z also prioritises politics and sports but shows stronger engagement with entertainment, culture, and technological developments, reflecting the influence of digital platforms and fast-paced media consumption habits.
Communication preferences also differ but they share some common ground. Text messaging is widely used across all generations, particularly among Gen X and Y, who also value face-to-face interaction. Gen Z shows greater diversity in preferred communication forms, with strong use of voice calls, text messaging, voice messages, and video calls, while face-to-face communication is less dominant.
Overall, these patterns highlight how differing technological environments and social experiences shape how each generation communicates and consumes media, reinforcing the idea that media preferences evolve alongside technological change and user needs.
Aleessawi, N. A. K. A., Aissani, R., Rsheidat, J. M. A. M., & Habes, M. (2026). Communication Preferences of Generations X, Y, and Z in Receiving Media Content. Journalism and Media, 7(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7020081
Understanding when local news meets audience needs is a complex issue. This paper, published in Journalism, presents the Local News Proximity Index, which measures access to local news and how strongly outlets are connected and committed to their communities.
Local news in small towns and cities plays an important role in keeping people informed and connected. It helps communities understand local issues, follow government actions, and stay safe during emergencies. Yet many outlets are struggling. Changes in advertising, the digital shift, and cost-cutting measures have led to closures, weaker coverage, and the rise of “news deserts.” Governments and municipalities have tried to help, often by funding established media, but support does not always reach the areas that need it most.
One challenge is defining what “local” really means. News outlets may claim to serve a place, but their actual presence and coverage can be limited. Some operate from distant hubs or rely heavily on shared content, reducing their connection to the communities they cover. This weakens trust and the value of local reporting.
Measuring local news has long been difficult. Early efforts often relied on maps that showed where outlets were based, but they missed a key point: being listed in a place does not mean an outlet truly serves it. Newer methods look at newsroom strength or content, but they still do not fully capture how connected an outlet is to a community.
The authors argue that proximity offers a clearer way to assess local news. It looks at three elements: geographic, cultural, and social proximity. Together, these show whether an outlet is truly embedded in a place. Focusing on proximity can help identify gaps, guide support, and strengthen local news where it matters most.
The Local News Proximity Index
Therefore, researchers developed the Local News Proximity Index (LNPI). It measures how closely a news outlet is tied to a specific place. The index looks at two main areas: physical presence, and the focus of coverage. These are broken down into factors such as staffing, infrastructure, local focus, and how well stories reflect the community. Together, they produce a single score that shows how strong an outlet’s local connection is.
The LNPI uses a 25-question survey based on a sample of recent coverage. It can be completed by journalists, researchers, or community members. Scores place outlets into four types, from strong local presence to little or none. Importantly, the focus is on each place, not just the outlet.
A case study of Tenterfield, Australia, shows how this works. While several outlets claim to cover the town, none have a strong local presence. Most reporting comes from outside the area, and coverage is often limited. The index helps reveal these gaps and shows where support is most needed.
The LNPI can help donors target support more effectively and encourage collaboration between outlets. It also offers useful data for researchers and for news organisations seeking funding. The index helps identify areas at risk, supports better decisions, and highlights opportunities to improve local news coverage.
Hess, K., Ross, A., McAdam, A., Blakston, A., Forde, S., Ricketson, M., & Martin, H. (2026). Putting news in its place: An index measurement tool to evaluate local news access. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849261427802
In a research article in Journalism Practice, Simone Benazzo, Florence Le Cam, David Domingo, and Marie Fierens look at Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia and analyse Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as instruments for media capture. SLAPPs undermine not only individual journalists but the sustainability, independence, and impact of the media ecosystems journalism funders seek to strengthen.
SLAPPs are legal actions used to harass or intimidate people who speak on matters of public interest. Because they rely on legal tools rather than open threats or violence, they are often hard for journalists to fight. While countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have had laws against SLAPPs for years, Europe has only recently taken steps in this direction following pressure from civil society and media groups.
Most academic work has focused on the legal structures that enable SLAPPs and on legal reforms that could stop them. Fewer studies have looked at their wider effects. The authors’ research seeks to understand the complexity of SLAPPs in Europe and the range of reactions to them. They view SLAPPs as a form of media capture, where governments or political and business interests try to control the media. In this sense, SLAPPs can contribute to autocratisation, a process in which countries become more autocratic even if they are still considered democracies.
They examined Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia, three democracies with different recent trends in autocratisation and different levels of SLAPP activity. Through interviews and focus groups with journalists, lawyers, and activists, the authors explored the actors involved and the strategies they use. Their analysis shows five key dimensions of this struggle: juridical, political, professional, financial, and social.
Looking at the juridical dimension, focus group participants saw SLAPPs as an abuse of the court system that restricts freedom of expression. The independence of the judiciary influenced how often SLAPPs occurred. In Croatia, where trust in judicial independence is low, SLAPPs are frequent, and some judges even file cases against journalists. In Germany, the courts generally defend press freedom, but participants warned that this could create complacency and allow cases to go unnoticed. In North Macedonia, past SLAPPs were marked by arbitrary decisions before defamation was decriminalised. Today, judges tend to protect journalists, partly due to training and pressure from professional associations. Across countries, participants debated whether training judges is enough, noting that the main issue is sometimes not knowledge but attitudes towards journalism.
Political actors also play a central role in shaping SLAPPs. In Croatia, both national and local politicians often initiate lawsuits, supported by close ties with judges. In North Macedonia, the fall of the autocratic government in 2017 reduced SLAPPs, though other political pressures remain. Regulatory bodies and major broadcasters still reflect older power structures. In Germany, SLAPPs by politicians are less common, but the rise of the AfD party has increased hostility towards the press, leading to long and costly disputes. Some focus group participants argued that these pressures shape the wider public sphere. In North Macedonia, joint declarations between political and media actors have been used as a tool to prevent legal action against journalists.
Professional bodies play an important role in resisting SLAPPs. Journalists’ associations in all three countries collect data, offer support, and advocate for better protection. Croatian associations run rapid-response systems and annual surveys. North Macedonia’s association works to secure free legal aid and contributes to national and international monitoring tools. In Germany, focus group participants stressed self-regulation and the need for the profession to defend itself. Press councils, however, were seen as limited in their ability to help, except in North Macedonia where their opinions influence court cases. External actors, such as European media organisations, also support journalists through training, advocacy, and insurance schemes.
SLAPPs also have severe financial consequences. In Croatia, high damages and “serial plaintiffs” place heavy burdens on journalists and media outlets. Some lawsuits appear motivated by profit rather than reputation. Law firms also benefit by specialising in these cases. In North Macedonia, legal reforms have reduced fines, easing some pressure. Participants described how SLAPPs can drain resources, force media into crowdfunding, or even bankrupt people. This financial fear can lead to self-censorship, as editors may stop investigations to avoid costly cases. In Germany, some in the focus group suggested joint funds as a way to help journalists face legal costs.
Public awareness of SLAPPs is low in all three countries. Many people distrust journalists, which weakens sympathy for those targeted. Focus group participants in Croatia and North Macedonia described widespread suspicion of the media, while German participants stressed the need to report on SLAPPs openly to build understanding. Awareness campaigns were seen as essential, led by civil society or journalists’ associations. Croatian participants felt that public knowledge had improved thanks to their efforts, though others in Germany and North Macedonia were less optimistic.
The authors created a multi-dimensional model to show the links among all five dimensions. Journalists and media sit at the centre, while political actors, business figures, and legal actors use SLAPPs to pressure or silence them. The model also highlights how different forms of media capture connect to the wider processes of autocratisation.
The three countries studied show important differences. In all of them, politicians have filed SLAPPs, but only in Croatia and North Macedonia did these cases come from politicians close to the ruling parties. In these contexts, SLAPPs act as tools of autocratisation, used by those in power to weaken dissent. In Germany, the rise of the AfD suggests that similar pressures may appear in the future. Another striking finding concerns Croatia, where some judges themselves use SLAPPs. This shows how legal actors can sometimes reinforce autocratising trends instead of blocking them. The findings also confirm that financial actors, including law firms that specialise in SLAPPs, now play a major role.
The study also highlights that SLAPPs can be resisted. Journalists, professional groups, civil society, and some judges use different strategies, such as public awareness, legal support, and political pressure. These efforts differ from country to country and depend on local power relations, resources, and traditions of cooperation.
Benazzo, S., Le Cam, F., Domingo, D., & Fierens, M. (2025). Journalism Facing Autocratization: Analyzing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as Instruments for Media Capture. Journalism Practice, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2598376
In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Bernadette Uth shows that audiences in Germany are rather reserved when it comes to using participatory features in journalism, despite believing that they are an important element in building trust. These findings show that even modest investments in audience engagement can strengthen trust and loyalty, key foundations for the long-term sustainability and public value of independent media.
Journalism has long relied on sales and advertising. In recent years, this model has become harder to sustain, therefore, many newsrooms now look for new ways to earn money and keep their audiences. One growing approach is to focus on a smaller group of loyal readers rather than the general public.
Digital media have changed what audiences expect from news. People can now respond to stories, share their views, or take part in discussions. Researchers have begun to study how users engage with these options, but most work has focused on simple actions such as liking or sharing articles. We still know little about deeper forms of engagement, such as taking part in the reporting process or offering ideas and feedback. This paper, however, introduces a way to classify digital engagement based on how much involvement it requires. It uses survey data from Germany to explore which engagement options people use and how important they find them, and examines how these perceptions relate to trust in journalism.
Trust is vital for journalism in democratic societies. Without it, audiences may avoid the news or question its purpose. Studies show that trust is shaped by personal experiences, emotions, and whether people feel represented. Many groups say they do not feel heard by the media, which has led to calls for closer and more open relationships between journalists and the public. Yet levels of trust vary, and some groups remain deeply sceptical. Local journalism often enjoys higher trust than national outlets, partly due to closer contact with communities.
Audience engagement is often seen as a promising way to strengthen trust, but actual participation remains low. This paper therefore explores how often people use various options, how important they find them, and whether seeing journalism as open and audience-focused is linked to greater trust.
As a first step, the author looked at how people use different ways to take part in digital journalism. Overall, all options are used, but to very different degrees. Simple actions, including user comments, liking or sharing articles, or joining quick polls, are the most common. Options that demand more effort, such as sending photos or videos or producing material for journalists, are used far less. Many read comments weekly or monthly, but only a small number write comments themselves. Even for the most popular option, a significant number of people rarely or never engage.
When the author compared the actual use of these options with their perceived importance, an interesting gap appeared. Many respondents do not use participatory features, yet they still say these features matter. People tend to value tools that help them express their views or follow others’ opinions, even if they do not use them themselves. Surveys and polls are rated as most important, followed by sharing articles and reading comments. High-involvement options such as sending topic suggestions or writing e-mails are also seen as fairly important, even though few people use them. The least important option is writing one’s own articles. Overall, people seem to value the idea of engagement more than the act itself.
Next, the author asked how people judge journalism’s efforts to engage its audience. Many respondents hold a neutral view, and a significant number say they cannot judge these aspects at all. People are more likely to agree that journalists allow the public to express opinions or discuss current topics with them. They are less convinced that journalists moderate discussions or build a sense of community with the public.
Finally, the author examined whether the perception of journalism as audience-oriented shapes trust. The results show a clear link: trust is higher among people who feel that journalism listens and engages. Age and political views also matter: older respondents tend to show lower trust, and supporters of some political parties express far more distrust. Media habits play a role too: those who follow traditional news show higher trust, while heavy users of social or alternative media tend to trust less. Showing an interest in dialogue and community-building can support trust. At the same time, outlets face the challenge of creating engagement opportunities that audiences will actually use.
Uth, B. (2025). Hardly Used, But Highly Appreciated? Use, Importance and Effects of Engagement-Oriented Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2605489
Based on interviews with journalists, content producers, and former journalists in Austria, Uta Russmann, Sabine Einwiller, Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Lina Stürmer, and Gisela Reiter produced an article in Journalism which found that the use of social media and the lack of financial and human resources in journalism are the main reasons for these blurring lines. This undermines journalistic independence, ethics, and public trust: areas where targeted funding and capacity-building can make a difference.
Since the rise of the Internet, journalism in Europe has faced a deep crisis. Long-held lines between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred, and at times seem to disappear. Traditional media business models have weakened, forcing news outlets to change how they work. Many now rely on advertorials, sponsored content, and other paid forms of communication. This has made news outlets less dependent on one source of income, but it has also pushed many journalists to move into PR or marketing. Austria reflects this wider trend. The number of full-time journalists fell sharply between 2007 and 2019, and many former journalists are now working entirely in PR or advertising.
This study explores how people in the profession view these blurred boundaries. In semi-structured interviews, the authors asked how journalists, hybrid journalists/content producers, and former journalists now working in PR or advertising understand journalism today. They also looked at the challenges they see in their daily work.
The paper places these views within the wider changes caused by digitalisation. New platforms, new formats, and economic pressures have transformed how media content is produced and shared. The overlap in skills demanded in journalism, PR, and marketing has grown. As a result, journalism is under pressure to protect its identity, values, and independence, while also adapting to fast-moving technological and market shifts.
The interviews showed that most respondents agree that the boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred. Many said these boundaries have almost disappeared and continue to fade, especially because of social media. Journalists and some former journalists viewed this trend very critically. They feel that economic pressure and limited resources have weakened the profession and also pointed to stronger influence from advertisers and the rise of media cooperations, where coverage forms part of a paid package. Some spoke of surreptitious advertising and the routine use of press releases. Former journalists now working in PR admitted that it is easy to place polished material in the media, but they also described this as ethically troubling. Several interviewees warned that trust in journalism may decline if these problems continue.
Others, especially journalists/content producers and some former journalists, had a more neutral or positive view. They argued that the blurred boundaries are simply a reality and cannot be reversed. They also noted that PR and advertising can offer well-prepared information with more time and resources, although this content lacks journalistic independence.
Social media plays a major role in these changes. Interviewees said it has increased the overlap between professions and created new pressures. Journalists now have to promote their own work online and master skills once associated with PR and marketing. As a result, the definition of journalism has become less clear. Many struggle to describe their own role, especially when working across different fields. The question of what journalism is, and who counts as a journalist, remains open.
The interviews showed that blurred boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising are now normal. Digital change and media convergence have caused these fields to overlap, and interviewees believe this trend will continue. Journalism has lost much of its old identity. Although journalists stress the importance of keeping clear boundaries, in practice, the lines are becoming harder to protect. PR, advertisers, and influencers all play a growing role in shaping information, and journalists struggle to keep their work separate. At the same time, journalists now use tools and skills once linked to PR and marketing, such as SEO and audience tracking. They also produce content for platforms like TikTok to reach younger audiences. This helps them adapt, but it also reduces their autonomy.
These changes raise ethical concerns. When journalism, PR, and advertising look alike, audiences may not recognise content that serves commercial or political interests. This can weaken trust and limit the depth of information available. It can also create conflicts of interest when media rely on commercial revenue. Clear labelling of paid content and strong ethical standards are essential to protect trust.
Although journalism has never been fixed, the current shifts have wide consequences. The profession must define proper practices and protect independence, as trust in journalism is vital for public debate and democratic life.
Russmann, U., Einwiller, S., Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Stürmer, L., & Reiter, G. (2025). Journalism in times of blurring boundaries between journalism, PR and advertising. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251406152
In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Liisa Ovaska (Tampere University) investigates Finnish news users’ understandings of the role of audience data in journalism by employing folk theories as an analytical approach.
The rise of datafication, the process of turning human actions on digital platforms into data, has transformed journalism. Newsrooms now rely on audience analytics to understand readers’ habits, adjust headlines, and choose topics that attract more attention. This data-driven approach aims to stabilise finances through subscriptions and engagement rather than advertising. However, it also shifts journalism from serving citizens’ needs to catering to consumer interests, often mixing news with entertainment.
Journalism research has long focused on how news is produced, paying less attention to how audiences understand and evaluate journalism. However, what people expect from journalism reveals much about how they perceive its purpose. Studies show that audiences in different countries want journalists to inform, fact-check, and hold those in power to account. Some also wish for more positive and solution-oriented reporting that makes them “feel good.” Yet, audiences often think commercial pressures shape journalism too much, leading to lower-quality content.
The concept of “folk theories of journalism” helps explain these audience views. Folk theories are people’s everyday beliefs about what journalism is, what it should do, and how it operates. They are shaped by personal experiences, social discussions, and public debates about the media. People use these informal theories to decide how much they trust and engage with news. For example, some audiences believe journalists are biased or too influenced by commercial interests, while others still value their ethical role.
In today’s data-driven media environment, these folk theories extend to ideas about algorithms and data use in journalism. Since people constantly encounter datafied systems online, their understanding of how data and algorithms work, often seen as opaque and profit-driven, shapes how they interpret digital journalism. Studying these beliefs helps reveal how audiences make sense of datafied journalism and how this affects their trust and engagement with the news.
News plays an important role in the daily lives of all participants in the focus groups, helping them stay informed and take part in conversations or political decisions. However, when discussing audience data, participants did not see journalism as a special or different kind of data collector compared to other companies. Their understanding of how news outlets use user data originated from several sources: personal experience with data use online, conversations with others, public debate about data collection, media messages such as cookie notices, and their participation in this study. Through these research activities, they reflected more deeply on these issues, shaping what can be called “sensitised” folk theories: views formed and clarified through guided discussion.
Across all groups, participants agreed that news organisations collect and use user data mainly for commercial reasons. They saw little journalistic or societal purpose behind these practices. Data use was understood as a way to attract advertisers, generate profit, and increase traffic on news sites. Some even described readers as “products” sold to advertisers, accepting this as part of getting free online news.
Participants also linked data practices to a decline in content quality. They felt that algorithms and analytics encourage more click-driven, superficial, and entertainment-based reporting. Headline testing and personalised news were seen as tools to boost clicks rather than inform readers. While some accepted background data use for advertising, many worried that commercial pressures were shaping journalism too strongly, weakening its role in serving the public interest.
The limited knowledge of participants of how news organisations use data suggests these practices are not clearly explained to the public. While participants remained active news readers, their critical attitudes raise questions about whether such scepticism could eventually weaken trust or engagement. The findings highlight the need for greater transparency around data use in journalism.
Ovaska, L. (2025). ‘It’s All About Money’ – News Users’ Folk Theory of Audience Data Utilisation in Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2567342
In a research article published in Journalism, Wilson Lowrey and Anna Grace Usery examine the adoption and adaptation of standards by local news collaborations and digital startups.
Local journalism is changing, with digital start-ups and news collaborations now creating new ways of working. These efforts often bring fresh standards that focus on ethics, quality, diversity, and community involvement. Such standards can be set by news outlets themselves, or by non-profits, research centres, or professional associations. They may consist of formal rules or more general principles, making them flexible and widely adopted. In a disrupted media field, standards help build trust, guide daily work, and give legitimacy to new players. Studying them reveals both their promise and their pitfalls.
Research into local journalism suggests several reasons why standards may be adopted in digital start-ups and news collaborations. Larger organisations often create more detailed standards because complexity makes it hard to predict outcomes, and flexible standards are easier to follow than strict rules. Collaborations with many members, each with their own aims, are especially likely to adopt broad guidelines that stress values such as ethics, diversity, or independence, rather than detailed instructions about operations. Younger outlets may not yet have many standards, while older ones could either have more specific rules tied to their mission or, because of complex connections with others, broader and less defined principles.
Outside groups such as civic organisations, associations, or research centres often influence these standards. Their guidelines tend to be abstract and focused on professional values rather than technical details. This means that collaborations with non-news members are less likely to adopt rules from news producers and more likely to follow general ethical or professional codes.
Business models also matter. Commercial outlets, under pressure to run efficiently, are more likely to stress operational rules. Non-profit outlets, by contrast, tend to focus on ideals like ethics and diversity and often have more standards overall, though they are less likely to demand strict compliance. Standards can also grow stronger when outlets focus on accountability journalism, since such work invites scrutiny and pushes organisations to show legitimacy through clear commitments.
To test these ideas, the study examined websites and published standards from a range of news collaborations and digital start-ups, including both non-profit and commercial outlets. These newer forms of journalism were chosen because they are most likely to look for legitimacy and support.
Most of the news sites studied had at least one set of standards, though some had more than one. These standards covered a wide range of themes, from ethics and diversity to community engagement and operational rules. Many outlets, especially non-profits, drew on outside organisations, such as professional associations or civic groups, for guidance. This shows how standards often spread beyond newsrooms and take shape in broader networks. Yet regrettably, many outlets treated standards more as symbols of legitimacy than as rules to be followed. In many cases, websites gave little sign of standards, or listed principles that were not clearly relevant to their specific mission.
When looking at the initial hypotheses, the results of the research were mixed. Larger news producers were not more likely to have extensive standards, nor did their standards focus more on abstract values, so both size-related predictions failed. The age of the outlet also showed no clear link with relevance of standards. The role of non-news partners proved weaker than expected: their presence did not increase the adoption of outside standards, nor did it push collaborations towards abstract principles.
Non-profit status mattered more. While non-profits were not necessarily more likely to frame their standards around broad principles, they were more likely to demand compliance and to have standards overall, especially when counting individual ones. Commercial outlets generally had fewer. The strongest and most consistent result was linked to accountability. Outlets that defined their mission around holding power to account had more standards, both in number and scope, and were far more likely to publish them.
This research showed that standards are easy to adopt and that they help newer organisations build legitimacy. Outlets that focused on accountability journalism were especially likely to adopt standards, perhaps because challenging the powerful invites criticism, making it important to show a public commitment to ethics and professionalism.
Outside organisations such as professional associations and networks appeared to shape the wider environment by offering sets of standards, but local outlets often adopted them loosely. Many principles were broad, not directly linked to the outlet’s mission or community. In fact, more than 40% of individual standards were judged not especially relevant to the producer’s local role, and on many sites, standards were either buried or not linked at all. This points to a degree of “decoupling,” where standards serve more as outward symbols than as tools for guiding daily practice.
The findings suggest that, while standards offer a useful framework, they risk becoming empty if not tied to the outlet’s own values and needs. Journalists and managers should think carefully about whether their standards reflect the priorities of their communities or mainly echo the agendas of outside organisations. For standards to strengthen trust, they must be meaningfully integrated into everyday reporting rather than left as vague, symbolic statements.
Lowrey, W., & Usery, A. G. (2025). The spread of news standards: Examining an emerging means for control and legitimacy in local journalism. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251362463
In an article published in the International Journal of Communication, Sebastian Sevignani, Hendrik Theine, and Mandy Tröger offer a new theoretical framework for analysing different forms of direct and indirect influence of Big Tech on news media by expanding the concept of media capture to media environment capture.
Powerful tech companies, especially US-based ones such as Meta and Google, are shaping journalism worldwide. They not only distribute news but also control the digital systems that decide what people see. This growing influence, which the authors call media environment capture, goes beyond ownership concentration: tech giants shape the entire information space. While researchers tend to focus on national cases or mix up different types of influence, this study suggests a broader way to understand how tech companies use both economic and technological power to shape journalism and public debate across countries and regions.
The idea of media capture originally described how governments influence media, despite laws protecting press freedom. This can happen through ownership, financial support, regulation, or corruption, usually leading to more positive coverage of the government. Over time, private companies and advertisers have also used similar tactics, buying media outlets or influencing content through advertising.
At the same time, with the rise of digital media, traditional media lost much of their advertising income to tech companies, leaving many outlets struggling financially and sometimes owned for political reasons instead of profit. Meanwhile, tech giants such as Google have become both funders of journalism and providers of essential tools which news outlets rely on, resulting in media environment capture.
To better understand the concept, the authors combine and apply interdisciplinary theories. They apply the theory of intellectual monopolisation, which focuses on the capabilities of digital conglomerates to absorb and claim knowledge, information, and data, influencing other industries including news media. They also borrow from critical state theory, offering conceptual clues as to how corporations influence media regulation. They also look at more recent theories of capitalism to understand how Big Tech harnesses the underpinnings of journalism.
Media environment capture explains how these tech giants create dependencies that make it hard for news organisations to function independently. On one hand, Big Tech provides funding to media outlets and journalism projects, sometimes to ease tensions with traditional media companies over advertising revenues. On the other, they also shape state media laws by spending millions on lobbying and supporting think tanks and research institutions, particularly in the European Union and the United States, which helps them steer debates on regulations and protect their business interests.
Furthermore, tech companies shape journalism practices through the platforms they provide, such as Facebook, through which they dominate news distribution and advertising. Through services like Google Analytics and Facebook Insights, tech companies control how media outlets understand and reach their audiences. Because so much news is consumed online, often through these platforms, journalists must adapt their content to fit algorithms and user data collected by Big Tech. This dependency forces them to adjust to the business models and distribution methods of tech giants, reducing their independence and changing journalism itself.
But news outlets also depend on Big Tech services and technologies to organise their daily work. Journalists use tools like Google Search, WhatsApp, and Teams for research and communication, while also relying on platforms like Facebook Instant Articles to share content.
The power of Big Tech comes from building large-scale hardware and software infrastructures and collecting vast amounts of user data, which they use to shape the digital public sphere. The concept of media capture, which focuses on ownership and financing, is no longer enough to explain their influence. Instead, the broader idea of media environment capture shows how their influence affects every part of news production and distribution.
As a result, media policies should be rethought by looking beyond single companies and instead considering how to reorganise the entire digital public sphere to protect independent journalism.
Sevignani, S., Theine, H., & Tröger, M. (2025). Unpacking Property: Media, Ownership, and Power in Transformation| Toward Media Environment Capture: A Theoretical Contribution on the Influence of Big Tech on News Media. International Journal of Communication, 19, 21. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/21987