News Isn’t Gone, It’s Just Changing
Much has been made about the collapse of local news and its impact on society. Now, new survey data show that it may be just the business of news collapsing while news itself lives on in new and unexpected forms.
Most research driving the narrative around the decline of local news measures the number of news outlets, journalists, newspaper and online subscriptions, and other metrics of traditional journalism. By these measures, local news distribution is undeniably shrinking. However, this matches an overall decline in interest in the news generally—not just local news—and coincides with major shifts in the forms and mediums people use to consume it.
For many reasons not particular to local news, including complex and difficult-to-measure factors like culture, technology, psychology, and the political climate, Americans are simply less interested in news overall. For better or worse, local journalism’s apparent collapse is part of a broader change in society rather than an acutely unique phenomenon.
More troubling is that these variables likely tangle into an impossibly complex web, in which causation could flow in both directions. In other words, are we consuming less news because our culture and psychology are changing, or are culture and psychology changing because we are consuming less news? It is a classic chicken-and-egg problem.
Far be it from me to try to untangle the web that American political attitudes have become, but rather than prematurely conclude the death of news, the problem could simply come down to defining the word. Many users may, whether intentionally or unintentionally, get their news from what is traditionally considered entertainment—and even comedy.
Fresh survey data from Pew Research Center on TikTok and the news takes a deeper dive into the topic. Some 52 percent of TikTok users (roughly 17 percent of all U.S. adults) report regularly getting news from the app, yet less than 1 percent of users followed journalists, pundits, and media outlets. The authors solve this contradiction by showing that “users tend to get news from a variety of sources, and often without seeking it out.” While roughly 95 percent of users say they use the app for entertainment, 52 percent report seeing news, mostly from nontraditional sources.
Users reported getting news from influencers or celebrities at the same rate as news outlets or journalists (68 percent and 67 percent respectively), but the highest category by far was “other people they don’t know personally,” at 84 percent. Clearly, a large segment of social media is delivering news as part of a larger blend of content, including comedy.
An astonishing 84 percent of TikTok users said they see funny posts that reference current events, while only 57 percent reported seeing news articles. Of all accounts that discussed news or politics (that may or may not be formal news outlets), over 36 percent also posted humorous content. The authors conclude that users “could get news from these accounts even if they do not primarily or solely focus on current events,” reinforcing the idea that more news may exist in more places and be delivered in more ways than previous studies have measured.
In a larger survey about all major social media platforms, less than 50 percent of participants responded positively when asked how often they encounter news on social media. However, when surveyors expanded the definition of news to include “opinion- or humor-based content,” over 90 percent said they see at least one piece of news content. Additionally, about one-third of users across all major social platforms cited news as at least a minor reason for using the apps.
Essentially, both surveys show that users are consuming more news than they even intend to, due in part to the blending of news and entertainment. Most studies suggesting a collapse in journalism may overlook this phenomenon because their definition of “news” is too narrow. Today, information increasingly spreads through channels beyond conventional definitions—including platforms focused on comedy and entertainment.
One report found that journalists with social media accounts got the most interactions on posts like “a day in the life of a journalist,” suggesting that consumers are just as interested in the person delivering the news as the news itself. Whether or not that is true, people’s perception of the news has changed. This is due in part to certain incidents, such as the one in 2018 where local newscasters across the country recited a script about how social media was misinformation—a clip that has been viewed tens of millions of times. Getting news directly from individuals partially removes the potential for this kind of manipulation.
Journalism and information are currently undergoing rapid changes, but the data seems to show that if journalism wants to be relevant again, it must better adapt to the influencer model of information and blend more entertainment into its coverage. Outlets in which all journalists are independent, multi-partisan, and funded through individual donations could represent a more successful model than traditional newsrooms. Newsrooms should come up with more ways to entertain and garner viewers, create revenue in places other than subscriptions, and focus on following digital and cultural trends.
Many important questions remain to be answered about this new age of journalism: Can influencer-driven news match traditional media in quality? Can it hold the government accountable effectively? Can it generally increase civic knowledge and engagement?
While there is an undeniable decline in the traditional news business model and a somewhat comparable decline in interest in the news, there may be more news circulating than we currently acknowledge. There is a clear disconnect between what users intend to see, what they actually see, and how news and information are being supplied. This complex phenomenon merits more study and research before a premature death of the news is declared.