So many interesting points here, as usual. I find your newsletter indispensable.
The news/information distribution environment is definitely changing by the minute, eviscerating what are now "old" models (using social media links as our paperboys) but were "new" something like seven minutes ago. We can complain all we want. Our we can adjust (while acknowleding that every distribution system gets gamed and corrupted eventually, including the way SEO experts and bots have warped the metric-reward system that has driven so much of news decision-making in recent years).
I would add that AI is also changing the game -- more of our stories contribute to Gemini-style summaries that draw on our work without in most cases driving readers to our websites. That upsets for-profit publishers. I actually welcome the change as long as we can figure out how to make sure we get appropriately crawled: I'd like our stories (instead of fake Russian-created "local" news sites) to be the source of the AI summaries (which do include links for the few who click on them). I don't resent AI companies for drawing on our work. I recognize that as a not-for-profit public-interest publisher, I don't need the extra zeroes in our (meaningless) official eyeball counts to please some investors or the remaining advertisers who are still in the AOL-dial-up equivalent realm of measuring impact. But I would also argue that, at least for local news, the for-profit publishers are wasting their time trying to jerry-rig new versions of outdated business models.
I would also add that the passive distribution system isn't just what pops up on social media, but even more so the notifications that pop up when we turn on our phones, either general notifications or what Google-recommended links appear below our search bars. My guess is that this algorithmic push system will become more sophisticated not years but months from now in forms that Baby Boomers like me will never be able to predict (but will enjoy watching emerge).
I question whether we would succeed in swimming against the tide to convert passive news consumers into renewed active news consumers. That doesn't mean we give up trying to inform people in a professional way about news in their communities; rather I think (as during the first phase of the online era a generation ago) we should figure out how to use the new tools to do our jobs even better. It seems like the basic strategy might be continuing to expand the many different platforms and vehicles we use to reach people, tapping young co-workers to add to the obvious newsletter and social media options we know about; while also preserving the old-school options for readers like "websites." Tell more stories in more ways to more people distributed in more ways than ever before -- not just to "those who remain active news consumers" (though definitely including them) but to everyone else as well. We shouldn't give up the latter group to My Pillow News.
always thoughtful, interesting and provocative. provokes one question and a comment. question is whether these passive recipients are less well-informed than we or our grandparents were. seems to me that's the critical question. If they are-- and I don't pretend to know but wonder --then what's the problem? Observation involves a quasi-newspaper published by political operatives that seems to be news, but has an underlying agenda. Example would be a screamer about inflation that tied it directly to Trump and GOP policies.
Thanks for this. On how well informed people are, my own guess (just that) is that it mirrors education: people now, on average, know about a wider range of things than previously, but many in less detail, which in areas such as civics can be hugely problematic.
I wonder if passivity is really new. Thinking back to the 50s and 60s, the newspaper came in the morning. Dad read the sports page and Mom read the fashion page. Both of them noticed the headlines while they were flipping to the parts they wanted. Radio presented headlines on the hour and Mom heard them. Very few people were actively seeking news. That's what reporters were paid to do!
I have long contended this. For one thing, every 'news' purveyor seems to follow the latest trend: short videos, 'live blogs,' what have you. As newswires, we had it right. You want your headline to be accurate, short, and first. Why? Because headlines pique interest. It's the same way in today's media environment. It's why chyrons were created for '24-7' blather and babbling and panels.
It's why different fonts and layouts in 'legacy' print were created. In the Xitter world, it could have served as it does generally on the 'interwebs' - with a url to lead people to the site originating it, for more details, or even merely to 'stay tuned.'
But consumers are generally passive. Even those who used to get the morning or evening paper delivered.
In fact they have to be, more so, now, while 'doom scrolling' on tiktok or instagram or even Facebook. Because not only are ads becoming pervasive (based on the user's monitored 'likes' or 'shares'), but loud.
Even on the sites - 'homepages' - delivering 'news.'
And here's the thing with 'passive' versus 'active.' To sit and watch a video is NOT 'passive.' It means your attention must be devoted to seconds of video - attention that otherwise might be devoted to other tasks, like 'work.'
What I have long contended is that audio - radio - is the way to have passive consumers who at least can convince themselves they are gathering information and news, while able to do other things that require less direct focus than diverting to watch something, like doing the dishes, or even reading.
So, step 1: get away from 'homepage' mentality. It's great (and old) that 'homepages' are laid out like newspapers, somewhat, or like a Google search.
Step 2: When news 'breaks,' put out an accurate, short, headline. Or a series of headlines. Fast. A 'push' or 'alert' that includes a 'thumbnail' photo or embedded video takes time; metadata takes time; everything that takes time in production is losing time in being not only accurate, but first.
Step 3: where do consumers go when they 'hear' something or want to 'know' something, even on their phones? Google, or another search engine. What do they search? 'Accident on I-78,' or 'Fire at Penn Station' or whatever.
THAT's where you want your headline. That's where you want them to 'look.' That's what you want them to 'click.'
If it leads them to a paywall, they'll try and find another way.
If it leads them to a 'homepage,' they'll try and find another way.
The platforms should be paying the news organizations, not the other way around. Right now, the platforms get the ad revenue, not the news organizations.
But if it leads them to an audio article, that they can listen to while driving or working or doing anything else, AFTER that experience, they might be willing to pay someone to consistently be clickable in the event of news. A subscription. Or just to be able to share it with someone else.
They don't want to peruse a newspaper. They don't want to peruse a homepage. They want instant, clickable information. Which they'd be more willing to pay someone for than, say, a paper they glance at that winds up in recycling. Or a homepage taking too long to get to the article they want, or the reel, or the audio.
Surveys/research and a world view which are built on a distinction between active and passive consumption of news are missing the opportunity to really learn how the world actually works in 2026. Is some one who’s got NYT or the local NPR or the WSJ on auto subscribe for the last 30 years, “active”? Or how about someone who leaves the TV or Radio on all or most of the day? Active? Passive? Or see’s news via social media platforms or shopping or whatever on online where they are doing something that doesn’t have anything explicitly to do w news? Or getting links from friend via texts or email? Or through talking to other people? Is talking active or passive?
So it’s not two bucket and it’s also not a continuum between active and passive. It’s also not the case that we should view one as more desirable or deeper or better or worse.
Research always has preconceptions about how the world works baked in, but we really need to do research that ensures we are learning about the world, not just looking for things that fit 20 year old things that we think we already know.
This is why all the “research” about news desserts is so unhelpful.
What comes under the category of "news comes to me" -- I wonder if the survey people defined or clarified their terms to the respondents. How about paging through a print paper and seeing stories you didn't, after all, seek out? Or hearing the news on the radio, rather than a particular podcast you clicked on -- active or passive? How about getting the headlines on a news organization's email newsletter? And if seeing a newsletter with a series of thumbnails and links doesn't count as passive, why should clicking on a story that appears on your social media feed, if you had signed up to follow that organization (or even if you hadn't)?
I agree that with the demise of "department store" newspapers that give you all your national/local/foreign/financial/sports/features/etc. under one roof (e.g., what The Washington Post just threw away), it's incumbent on readers to find individual sources for these things. But then once those organizations have found you -- which is how it works once you click on their content -- and show you their news, are you then passive?
I don’t think the serendipity of a print paper or the internal links of a newsletter, both after you have chosen to subscribe, would seem to people to “come to me” rather than “seek it out,” but if you think the question was poorly posed, that’s another argument for more research. On social, I do think there’s a big difference between things you follow and things the algorithm shows you.
Pay walls are accelerating this trend.
So many interesting points here, as usual. I find your newsletter indispensable.
The news/information distribution environment is definitely changing by the minute, eviscerating what are now "old" models (using social media links as our paperboys) but were "new" something like seven minutes ago. We can complain all we want. Our we can adjust (while acknowleding that every distribution system gets gamed and corrupted eventually, including the way SEO experts and bots have warped the metric-reward system that has driven so much of news decision-making in recent years).
I would add that AI is also changing the game -- more of our stories contribute to Gemini-style summaries that draw on our work without in most cases driving readers to our websites. That upsets for-profit publishers. I actually welcome the change as long as we can figure out how to make sure we get appropriately crawled: I'd like our stories (instead of fake Russian-created "local" news sites) to be the source of the AI summaries (which do include links for the few who click on them). I don't resent AI companies for drawing on our work. I recognize that as a not-for-profit public-interest publisher, I don't need the extra zeroes in our (meaningless) official eyeball counts to please some investors or the remaining advertisers who are still in the AOL-dial-up equivalent realm of measuring impact. But I would also argue that, at least for local news, the for-profit publishers are wasting their time trying to jerry-rig new versions of outdated business models.
I would also add that the passive distribution system isn't just what pops up on social media, but even more so the notifications that pop up when we turn on our phones, either general notifications or what Google-recommended links appear below our search bars. My guess is that this algorithmic push system will become more sophisticated not years but months from now in forms that Baby Boomers like me will never be able to predict (but will enjoy watching emerge).
I question whether we would succeed in swimming against the tide to convert passive news consumers into renewed active news consumers. That doesn't mean we give up trying to inform people in a professional way about news in their communities; rather I think (as during the first phase of the online era a generation ago) we should figure out how to use the new tools to do our jobs even better. It seems like the basic strategy might be continuing to expand the many different platforms and vehicles we use to reach people, tapping young co-workers to add to the obvious newsletter and social media options we know about; while also preserving the old-school options for readers like "websites." Tell more stories in more ways to more people distributed in more ways than ever before -- not just to "those who remain active news consumers" (though definitely including them) but to everyone else as well. We shouldn't give up the latter group to My Pillow News.
always thoughtful, interesting and provocative. provokes one question and a comment. question is whether these passive recipients are less well-informed than we or our grandparents were. seems to me that's the critical question. If they are-- and I don't pretend to know but wonder --then what's the problem? Observation involves a quasi-newspaper published by political operatives that seems to be news, but has an underlying agenda. Example would be a screamer about inflation that tied it directly to Trump and GOP policies.
Thanks for this. On how well informed people are, my own guess (just that) is that it mirrors education: people now, on average, know about a wider range of things than previously, but many in less detail, which in areas such as civics can be hugely problematic.
I wonder if passivity is really new. Thinking back to the 50s and 60s, the newspaper came in the morning. Dad read the sports page and Mom read the fashion page. Both of them noticed the headlines while they were flipping to the parts they wanted. Radio presented headlines on the hour and Mom heard them. Very few people were actively seeking news. That's what reporters were paid to do!
I have long contended this. For one thing, every 'news' purveyor seems to follow the latest trend: short videos, 'live blogs,' what have you. As newswires, we had it right. You want your headline to be accurate, short, and first. Why? Because headlines pique interest. It's the same way in today's media environment. It's why chyrons were created for '24-7' blather and babbling and panels.
It's why different fonts and layouts in 'legacy' print were created. In the Xitter world, it could have served as it does generally on the 'interwebs' - with a url to lead people to the site originating it, for more details, or even merely to 'stay tuned.'
But consumers are generally passive. Even those who used to get the morning or evening paper delivered.
In fact they have to be, more so, now, while 'doom scrolling' on tiktok or instagram or even Facebook. Because not only are ads becoming pervasive (based on the user's monitored 'likes' or 'shares'), but loud.
Even on the sites - 'homepages' - delivering 'news.'
And here's the thing with 'passive' versus 'active.' To sit and watch a video is NOT 'passive.' It means your attention must be devoted to seconds of video - attention that otherwise might be devoted to other tasks, like 'work.'
What I have long contended is that audio - radio - is the way to have passive consumers who at least can convince themselves they are gathering information and news, while able to do other things that require less direct focus than diverting to watch something, like doing the dishes, or even reading.
So, step 1: get away from 'homepage' mentality. It's great (and old) that 'homepages' are laid out like newspapers, somewhat, or like a Google search.
Step 2: When news 'breaks,' put out an accurate, short, headline. Or a series of headlines. Fast. A 'push' or 'alert' that includes a 'thumbnail' photo or embedded video takes time; metadata takes time; everything that takes time in production is losing time in being not only accurate, but first.
Step 3: where do consumers go when they 'hear' something or want to 'know' something, even on their phones? Google, or another search engine. What do they search? 'Accident on I-78,' or 'Fire at Penn Station' or whatever.
THAT's where you want your headline. That's where you want them to 'look.' That's what you want them to 'click.'
If it leads them to a paywall, they'll try and find another way.
If it leads them to a 'homepage,' they'll try and find another way.
The platforms should be paying the news organizations, not the other way around. Right now, the platforms get the ad revenue, not the news organizations.
But if it leads them to an audio article, that they can listen to while driving or working or doing anything else, AFTER that experience, they might be willing to pay someone to consistently be clickable in the event of news. A subscription. Or just to be able to share it with someone else.
They don't want to peruse a newspaper. They don't want to peruse a homepage. They want instant, clickable information. Which they'd be more willing to pay someone for than, say, a paper they glance at that winds up in recycling. Or a homepage taking too long to get to the article they want, or the reel, or the audio.
IMHO.
This bugs me too.
Surveys/research and a world view which are built on a distinction between active and passive consumption of news are missing the opportunity to really learn how the world actually works in 2026. Is some one who’s got NYT or the local NPR or the WSJ on auto subscribe for the last 30 years, “active”? Or how about someone who leaves the TV or Radio on all or most of the day? Active? Passive? Or see’s news via social media platforms or shopping or whatever on online where they are doing something that doesn’t have anything explicitly to do w news? Or getting links from friend via texts or email? Or through talking to other people? Is talking active or passive?
So it’s not two bucket and it’s also not a continuum between active and passive. It’s also not the case that we should view one as more desirable or deeper or better or worse.
Research always has preconceptions about how the world works baked in, but we really need to do research that ensures we are learning about the world, not just looking for things that fit 20 year old things that we think we already know.
This is why all the “research” about news desserts is so unhelpful.
What comes under the category of "news comes to me" -- I wonder if the survey people defined or clarified their terms to the respondents. How about paging through a print paper and seeing stories you didn't, after all, seek out? Or hearing the news on the radio, rather than a particular podcast you clicked on -- active or passive? How about getting the headlines on a news organization's email newsletter? And if seeing a newsletter with a series of thumbnails and links doesn't count as passive, why should clicking on a story that appears on your social media feed, if you had signed up to follow that organization (or even if you hadn't)?
I agree that with the demise of "department store" newspapers that give you all your national/local/foreign/financial/sports/features/etc. under one roof (e.g., what The Washington Post just threw away), it's incumbent on readers to find individual sources for these things. But then once those organizations have found you -- which is how it works once you click on their content -- and show you their news, are you then passive?
I don’t think the serendipity of a print paper or the internal links of a newsletter, both after you have chosen to subscribe, would seem to people to “come to me” rather than “seek it out,” but if you think the question was poorly posed, that’s another argument for more research. On social, I do think there’s a big difference between things you follow and things the algorithm shows you.