Login
close
Login is restricted to DCN Publisher Members. If you are a DCN Member and don't have an account, register here.
Search

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Articles by: "Rande Price, Research VP – DCN"

A robot sits behind an unhappy jouralist to show the possibly negative impact of AI in journalism
Industry-Research

Americans skeptical about AI’s role in journalism 

As artificial intelligence gains traction in American newsrooms, most of the public has growing concerns about its long-term effects on journalism. While AI may promise efficiency and innovation, audiences fear the loss of editorial quality, factual accuracy, and jobs.  

Michael Lipka’s report for the Pew Research Center reveals that half of U.S. adults (50%) believe AI will negatively impact the news people receive over the next 20 years, while only 10% foresee a positive effect. The rest see a mixed impact (23%) or aren’t sure (16%). 

Concerns for journalists’ jobs

One of the starkest findings from Pew’s nationally representative survey is the projected toll on employment in journalism. Nearly six in 10 Americans (59%) believe that AI will reduce journalism jobs over the next two decades. Only 5% expect AI to create more roles, which underscores widespread anxiety about automation displacing skilled labor in newsrooms. 

This echoes themes from other industry-focused studies. The 2024 European Broadcasting Union (EBU) News Report reinforces the importance of human oversight in AI generative content. While acknowledging that AI technologies can enhance newsroom efficiency and content creation, the report stresses that human editorial judgment remains essential to ensure accuracy and uphold accountability. It also highlights transparency as a critical factor in maintaining public trust, emphasizing that the integration of AI in journalism must not come at the expense of ethical standards and journalistic integrity. 

Performance gaps and trust deficits 

The public also doubts AI’s current ability to match the standards employed by human journalists. In Pew’s survey, 41% of Americans say AI would do a worse job than professional journalists at writing a news story, compared with only 19% who believe it would do better. Another 20% say the quality would be about the same. 

Pew research chart showing American Concern about AI and information/ journalism

These concerns are not just hypothetical. Developers of leading generative AI systems—such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Gemini publicly acknowledge the ongoing issue of “hallucinations,” or confident-sounding but factually incorrect statements. Two-thirds of respondents (66%) in the Pew study say they are extremely or very concerned about people getting inaccurate information from AI-generated content, with another 26% somewhat concerned. 

The Reuters Institute’s Journalism, Media and Technology Trends and Predictions 2025 report supports this sentiment. While 80% of news executives report testing generative AI, most remain cautious. Only a minority (around 20%) use AI to produce original stories. Instead, common applications include headline optimization, translation, transcription, and tagging—low-risk tasks that minimize the threat of spreading misinformation or editorial errors. 

Bipartisan concern despite a divided media environment 

One surprising aspect of the Pew findings is the bipartisan nature of AI skepticism. Despite sharply differing views on mainstream media trust, Democrats and Republicans largely agree about AI’s potential risks in journalism. For instance, 68% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans say they are extremely or very concerned about AI-generated misinformation. And when it comes to AI’s long-term impact on news, the gap is narrow: 54% of Republicans compared to 49% of Democrats expect a negative outcome. In an era of political polarization, this rare alignment suggests that concern over AI’s role in news transcends ideological divides.  

Educational disparities in AI perceptions 

Pew’s data also reveals differences in perceptions based on education level. Americans with at least some college education are more likely to negatively view AI’s impact on journalism. For example, 56% of college graduates and 54% of those with some college experience expect harm to news quality versus 44% of those with a high school diploma or less. 

Those more familiar with the nuances of journalism may better understand the stakes around issues like source vetting, bias detection, and ethical storytelling. For news organizations, these findings highlight the need for greater public education about AI integration into the editorial process and how humans must oversee the process. 

Incorporating innovation and integrity 

As AI grows more capable, its role in media will continue to expand; however, its success will depend on maintaining audience trust. 

Strategies to consider include: 

  • Transparent disclosure of AI use in news production (e.g., “AI-assisted reporting” tags). 
  • Human-in-the-loop editorial models that pair AI speed with journalistic judgment. 
  • Clear internal guidelines around the ethical deployment of generative tools. 
  • Investments in staff training to help journalists leverage AI while maintaining standards. 

As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in society, its impact on journalism is just one example of broader public concerns about automation, trust, and accountability. Skepticism surrounding AI in newsrooms reflects unease about how these technologies might reshape essential human-centered fields. The challenge lies in balancing innovation with ethical responsibility, to ensure that progress enhances – and does not undermine – the media institutions the public relies upon. 

Even Google search knows the impact of AI Overviews on CTRs
Industry-Research

Google’s AI overviews linked to lower publisher clicks

When you search on Google today, you’re likely to see a boxed summary at the top of the results page. This feature, called an AI Overview, aims to answer your question instantly by summarizing information pulled from multiple websites. According to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, AI Overviews benefits publishers. “If you put content and links within AI Overviews, they get higher clickthrough rates than if you put it outside,” he claims. However, publishers and website owners are skeptical of this perspective. Research suggests that this skepticism is not unfounded.

In a new report, AI Overviews Reduce Clicks by 34.5%, researchers Ryan Law and Xibeijia Guan analyze how AI Overviews impact user behavior in Google Search. Their findings suggest that these AI-generated summaries are not increasing clicks to websites but decreasing them.

Research framework

Law and Guan examine 300,000 search keywords using data from the Ahrefs Keywords Explorer database:

  • 150,000 keywords trigger AI Overviews in Google Search.
  • 150,000 keywords are similar in topic and intent but do not trigger AI Overviews.

They focus specifically on informational queries—questions like “how to start composting” or “symptoms of low iron”—since 99.2% of keywords that trigger AI Overviews fall into this category.

Using aggregated Google Search Console (GSC) data, the researchers calculate the average desktop clickthrough rate (CTR) for the top-ranking result on each keyword. They compare results from March 2024 (before AI Overviews roll out in the U.S.) to March 2025 (after rollout) to evaluate the impact.

Impact of AI Overviews: less clicks

AI Overviews: Impact of AI overviews in search results on click through rates (CTR)
  • In March 2024, the average CTR for the #1 result on AI Overview keywords is 7.3%.
  • In March 2025, that number falls to just 2.6%.
  • This represents a 34.5% decrease in clicks when an AI Overview appears at the top of the search results.

In plain terms, websites that once received steady traffic from top search rankings now see far fewer visits when AI Overviews appear.

Why are search clicks dropping?

AI Overviews operate similarly to Google’s Featured Snippets. The search results attempt to answer the user’s question directly on the results page, eliminating the need to click through to any website.

While Google includes source links in these summaries, it often shares them across multiple sites. No single publisher is likely to capture a significant share of the clicks. The result is a growing number of zero-click searches, where users get what they need without ever leaving Google.

Adding to the issue, Google’s Search Console doesn’t separate AI Overview clicks from standard organic traffic. Publishers can’t easily see whether changes in performance are related to AI Overviews or other factors. This lack of transparency makes it even harder for site owners to understand and respond to traffic declines.

Industry experts see the same trend

The study’s findings aren’t isolated. SEO professionals across the industry report similar patterns. Lily Ray of Amsive Digital warns that AI-dominated search results could “decimate” organic performance. Rand Fishkin of SparkToro has also voiced concern over Google’s increasing efforts to keep users within its ecosystem rather than sending them out to external websites. These observations align with the research: AI Overviews appear to reduce visibility and engagement for content publishers.

Looking ahead

The study by Law and Guan represents the most detailed empirical look so far at the impact of AI Overviews. It challenges Google’s claims and raises important questions about the future of search visibility for publishers.

Despite Google’s assurances, the current data shows that AI Overviews are pulling attention away from websites, not driving it toward them. This shift signals a need to rethink how we approach content and visibility in a rapidly evolving search landscape.

Young Teens aged 11-13 engaging with digital devices to reflect young audiences and their activities
Industry-Research | Research

How being always-on impacts young audiences 

In today’s digital world, young audiences increasingly immerse themselves in screens, from smartphones to social media and video games. As technology becomes an integral part of the daily lives of young adolescents, it raises critical questions about its impact on their social interactions, mental health, and overall well-being. New University of South Florida research finds that young adolescents overwhelmingly possess smartphones and are using them for hours a day.  

While the Life in Media Survey does find negative correlations between certain online activities and their emotional health, it also makes some surprising discoveries. For example, contrary to the idea that smartphones lead to isolation, they find that smartphone owners tend to spend more time with friends in person than those without phones. However, for ethical media companies – who care about the audiences they serve – it is important to consider how best to optimize digital experiences to support young teens’ wellbeing.

The Life in Media Survey, a collaboration between the University of South Florida and The Harris Poll, explores digital media use and well-being among those aged 11-13. Although numerous researchers, educators, parents, and policymakers have advocated for reducing digital media usage among children, the USF study shows an increasing level of connectivity. A significant 78% of all participants possess their own smartphone, with 72% of 11-year-olds included in this group; additionally, 56% have their own tablet. 

Kids estimated that they spend an average of 4.4 hours on their smartphone and/or tablet on schooldays, 6.3 hours on non-schooldays. And for some of these kids, smartphones are disruptive given that 20% of kids reported that push notifications on their smartphones and other devices are always on. 

Social media, gaming and cyberbullying  

The study also shows that children who game daily or frequently use social media spend more time connecting online with friends. However, these connections can have negative effects. For example, cyberbullied kids spend more time online, potentially exposing them to harmful environments, which can exacerbate emotional distress. Balancing the benefits of technology with its risks remains a central challenge in shaping healthy digital environments for the next generation.  

The survey uncovers a link between cyberbullying and engagement with social media influencers. Cyberbullied kids are more likely to interact with influencers—whether by sending money, messaging them, or purchasing endorsed products. This interaction suggests that some bullied children may turn to influencers for emotional support or validation, using them as an escape from online bullying in other spaces. 

What kids think of technology’s impact 

While there are concerns about technology’s impact on children, many kids still express enjoyment in using digital devices, particularly social media. Around 74% of kids enjoy social media, whether they experience bullying online or not. However, the emotional impact of technology is more complicated. Cyberbullied kids are more likely to feel that technology interferes with their daily lives. This highlights the need for platforms to ensure a safer online environment for young audiences. 

One in three kids agreed with the statement “Social media causes more harm than good,” and about the same proportion disagreed with that statement (34% and 33%, respectively). Three in 10 kids (29%) say that they believe that A.I. causes more harm than good, and respondents were slightly more likely to agree with the statement if they’d previously used A.I. tools (32% vs. 28%). 

What young audiences are doing online

Streaming platforms are also a significant part of children’s media consumption. Three out of four children use Netflix and Disney+ (77% and 73%, respectively), while half or more use Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, and Spotify (68%, 56%, and 52%, respectively).  

When asked to list their most-used platform, more respondents selected YouTube than any other program, followed closely by TikTok (17% and 15%, respectively). Entertainment tops the favorite genres of online videos, with gaming listed by 35% of respondents, followed by music and comedy (29% and 23%, respectively, based on selecting up to two favorite genres). 

The research findings show that users spend almost four hours a day on their most-used app. Those who favor Netflix report using the app for an average of 4.0 hours a day, which is slightly higher than the average 3.6 hours reported by those who prefer YouTube, Roblox, and Instagram. The slight bump might be due to the longer-form content on Netflix. TikTok use averaged slightly lower, at 3.2 hours a day. 

The “more-and-more” phenomenon 

The data here points to a “more-and-more” trend, where kids who engage in one type of media activity, such as gaming or social media, are more likely to binge on another media activity. This phenomenon underscores the need to create content that spans multiple platforms. By doing so, they can capture and hold the attention of young audiences more effectively. 

The Life in Media Survey provides valuable insights into how digital media shapes young adolescents’ lives. While technology fosters connection and entertainment, it also brings risks related to cyberbullying, excessive screen time, and emotional well-being. For the media industry, this means developing content that engages young viewers and supports their mental health. By prioritizing positive and age-appropriate media experiences, the industry can help mitigate these risks while embracing digital media opportunities. 

Social and streaming are redefining the video entertainment and streaming market
Industry-Research | Research | Video

How social and streaming are redefining video entertainment

While we’ve seen shifts in consumer behavior over the past few years, they are now happening at an accelerated pace, which impacts those in the media and video entertainment sectors. Younger consumers, in particular, are moving away from traditional pay TV subscriptions in favor of streaming services, social platforms, and gaming. The rise of short-form, algorithm-driven videos offers an endless supply of free content that keeps users engaged for hours. These platforms excel in curating and promoting personalized experiences through AI and recommendation algorithms.

Thus, it won’t come as a big surprise that social platforms now account for more than half of U.S. ad spending, which positions them as major competitors to traditional media outlets. According to Deloitte’s Digital Media Trends 2025 Report, social platforms have become the new center of gravity in media, capturing both consumer attention and advertising dollars.

The report highlights that younger generations, especially Gen Z and millennials, are likely to cancel their cable subscriptions, citing high costs and frustration with the volume of ads. With cable bills averaging $125 per month, the appeal of traditional TV services is fading. For younger viewers, free content on social media and affordable, ad-supported streaming services provides a more cost-effective alternative to pricey cable packages.

As a result, pay TV subscriptions are declining steadily, dropping from 63% to 49% of U.S. households over the past three years. SVOD services now offer a wider range of options, including live sports, which once was a driving force for much of the pay TV market. Additionally, many users turn to social media for news and sports highlights, further eroding the traditional TV audience. consumer media habits include

Advertising landscape

With advanced ad tech and data analytics, social platforms dominate the global ad market. Deloitte’s research shows that ads on social media are more likely to influence Gen Z and millennials than ads on traditional TV or streaming services. The younger generations appreciate the relevancy and personalization of social media advertising. By comparison, ads on traditional media feel more intrusive and less targeted, which diminishes their effectiveness.

For traditional media companies, these trends present a significant challenge. Studios and streaming services increasingly turn to ad-supported subscription tiers to lower costs and attract a wider audience. However, these services still face an uphill battle in attracting advertisers away from the social platforms that dominate the digital ad space. The advertising capabilities of social platforms are advanced, as they leverage sophisticated algorithms and AI to target specific audience segments with highly relevant ads.

Streaming services

While streaming video services offer consumers a wealth of content, they have their own set of challenges. Rising subscription costs are creating dissatisfaction among users. The research shows that 41% of consumers feel that the content available on SVOD services is no longer worth their price. This is particularly evident as streaming costs rise—on average, SVOD subscribers pay $69 per month, a 13% increase from the previous year. Many consumers, especially Gen Z and millennials, cancel services and jump from one streaming provider to the next in search of better value.

Moreover, the advertising-supported tiers of SVOD services have become a crucial part of many companies’ strategies to lower subscription costs while generating revenue. However, this model comes with trade-offs. While 54% of SVOD users say they subscribe to at least one ad-supported service, many express frustrations with the volume of ads. To compete, media companies must find a price point that works for consumers while balancing the needs of advertisers and content creators.

Content creator connection

Content creators have become a central force in the media landscape. Social platforms offer a new generation of influencers whose content drives engagement and shapes consumer behavior. For younger generations, creators are now as influential as traditional TV stars and movie actors. In fact, many consumers report feeling a stronger personal connection to their favorite creators than to the personalities they see on traditional TV. This trend is fueling the growth of social media platforms as major entertainment hubs.

This shift represents an opportunity to tap into the growing creator economy. By leveraging social media, media brands can engage audiences in new ways and tap into the influence and authenticity that creators bring to the table.

As social platforms and content creators continue to dominate the entertainment landscape, traditional media companies must reevaluate their content strategies and business models. The merging of social platforms, creators, and on-demand services is reshaping the media’s core. Media companies will need to adapt to the changing demands of consumers, who now expect more from their entertainment experiences.

Levers controlling revenue from multiple sources to show the revenue streams for streaming and digital video
Industry-Research | Video

Streaming revenue sources are shifting 

The transition away from traditional pay-TV is accelerating. In fact, traditional TV no longer dominates the video subscription market. By 2028, traditional pay TV’s share of video subscription revenues will decrease to just one-third. Meanwhile, digital pay-TV services, also known as virtual multichannel video programming distributors (vMVPDs), will increase their share from 13.2% in 2025 to 15.4% by 2028. These services, including YouTube TV, Fubo, and Sling TV, deliver linear TV content over the Internet, making them appeal to consumers seeking flexibility and lower costs than traditional pay TV. 

Emarketer’s Digital Video and Trends report for Q1 2025 shows that streaming services are poised to achieve even greater growth, increasing their share of video subscription revenues by about eight percentage points by 2028. Notably, YouTube has become a significant player in the subscription business. While YouTube remains known for its free, ad-supported platform, its YouTube Premium and YouTube Music services collectively boast over 100 million subscribers. YouTube TV, which claimed 8 million U.S. subscribers in 2024, is also contributing significantly to the growth of digital pay TV. 

Rising costs and consumer behavior 

Although subscription revenues still dominate the streaming sector, rising prices are reshaping consumer behavior. In recent years, both traditional pay-TV and streaming services have raised prices, driven by inflation. However, streaming services have increased prices at a faster rate over the past two years, surpassing the cost growth of traditional pay TV. This price disparity has triggered consumer pushback, especially as streaming services introduce price hikes and clamp down on password sharing. 

the prices of streaming services outpace inflation which drives streaming revenue

Streaming giants like Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ employ strategies to boost profitability, including raising subscription costs and limiting account sharing. These actions, along with content cuts, have led to some consumer dissatisfaction. Despite these challenges, streaming services remain profitable on paper. 

Among the streaming platforms, Hulu and Disney+ have made some of the largest price increases for their ad-free plans. While Apple TV+ stays relatively affordable, its library lags behind competitors. All the while, it has  doubled its subscription price since launch. 

Live sports drives subscription growth 

Streaming services are capitalizing on the growing demand for live sports, which increasingly draws subscribers away from traditional TV. Major streaming platforms, such as NBCUniversal’s Peacock and Amazon Prime Video, continue to invest heavily in sports rights. This is further shifting the sports broadcasting landscape from traditional TV to streaming platforms. By 2027, digital sports viewership will surpass traditional TV viewership by 52 million viewers, signaling the ongoing transition in how consumers watch live sports. 

YouTube TV’s growth and the digital pay-TV market 

YouTube TV is seeing significant success among the growing digital pay-TV services. As traditional pay-TV continues to shed subscribers, YouTube TV is adding them at a steady pace. By 2026, it will become the largest pay-TV operator in the United States. Although YouTube TV is not yet profitable, it is an important player in the broader digital pay-TV market, now accounting for about one-fifth of total pay-TV subscription revenues. 

The digital pay-TV market is also experiencing consolidation. In January 2025, Hulu + Live TV and Fubo TV announced a merger. Disney will hold a 70% stake in the new venture, with Fubo’s leadership overseeing operations. Although Hulu + Live TV and Fubo will remain separate offerings, this consolidation may lead to further streamlining of the digital pay-TV space. 

Shifting streaming revenue streams: subscription vs. advertising  

Streaming subscription revenue

While subscriptions still represent the majority of revenue for streaming services, advertising is growing in importance. From 2023 to 2027, advertising’s share of total streaming revenues will increase by nearly four percentage points. This rise in ad spending reflects the growing significance of connected TV (CTV) platforms, a critical avenue for advertisers looking to reach consumers on streaming services. 

In fact, CTV ad spending may exceed 15.8% year-over-year growth in 2025, outpacing the 10.6% growth forecast for U.S. streaming subscription revenues during the same period. However, both advertising and subscription revenues in traditional TV are in decline, though price increases for subscriptions help slow the rate of decline. 

While this Emarketer report focuses on the U.S. market, it’s important to note that streaming services are also seeing significant growth worldwide. As of Q2 2024, nearly 60% of Netflix’s revenues come from outside of North America. While prices are lower in regions like Asia and South America than North America and Europe, the global growth potential for streaming services remains immense. Countries across North America, South America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific are seeing high levels of subscription penetration, with streaming services continuing to expand their reach internationally. 

Digital Pay TV contributes to streaming revenue

The video subscription landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Traditional TV’s dominance is slipping as streaming services and digital pay-TV providers continue to capture an increasing market share. For media executives, this shift presents both challenges and opportunities.  

Subscription revenue remains the primary source of growth for streaming services. Rising costs and consumer demand for more flexible, lower-cost options continue to shape the industry. At the same time, the increasing importance of advertising revenue, coupled with the global expansion of streaming platforms, offers new avenues for monetization. Staying ahead of these trends and adapting to the evolving market dynamics is key to maintaining a competitive edge in this rapidly changing ecosystem. 

A confused robot to show how AI search has trouble with news citations and attribution
Research

AI search has a news citation problem

Artificial intelligence is transforming the way people search for and consume news. With nearly one in four Americans now using generative AI chatbots instead of traditional search engines, the way journalism reaches audiences is shifting dramatically. While AI-powered search promises speed and convenience, it presents serious challenges for news publishers, including loss of attribution (citations), declining referral traffic, and misinformation.

A new Tow Center for Digital Journalism study highlights these risks, revealing how AI-driven search tools often fail to credit, or to accurately credit, sources and bypass publisher controls, such as paywalls. As AI search rapidly evolves, media executives must understand its implications and develop strategies to protect journalism’s integrity and financial viability.

AI search engines struggle with accuracy and attribution

The Tow Center analysis studies eight AI-powered search tools: Perplexity, Google’s AI Overviews, Bing Chat, ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Meta AI, and Grok. The research concludes that over 60% of AI-generated responses contain incorrect or misleading information. Unlike traditional search engines that list multiple sources for verification, generative AI tools present single, authoritative-sounding answers—often with a false sense of confidence.

When AI search engines provide sources, they cite syndicated or republished versions rather than providing a citation for the original publisher. This practice diminishes the visibility of primary news organizations and deprives them of direct traffic. Even more troubling, some platforms, such as Grok and Gemini, regularly generate broken or fabricated URLs, misleading users and reducing referral traffic to legitimate news sites.

AI platforms ignore publisher controls

Beyond attribution issues, many AI search tools fail to respect industry norms designed to protect publishers’ content. The study finds that AI platforms routinely retrieve content from sites even when publishers explicitly block them using robots.txt, a standard tool for controlling web crawling. This disregard for publisher restrictions raises ethical concerns and undermines publishers’ ability to manage the use of their content.

The Tow Center analysis also identifies inconsistencies in using publishers’ content with licensing agreements. Some news organizations with formal partnerships with AI companies still experience misattribution or see their content surface in ways that do not drive traffic back to their platforms. These findings suggest that agreements alone are insufficient to ensure proper credit or compensation for news publishers.

Revenue and engagement threat

For media companies, the rise of AI search directly threatens digital traffic, audience engagement, and revenue generation. Traditional search engines drive referral traffic to news sites, supporting subscription models, advertising revenue, and brand visibility. If AI search tools continue to bypass proper citation and link attribution, they could significantly weaken publishers’ brand recognition, authority, and ability to monetize their content.

Additionally, AI-driven search changes user behavior by reducing the need to visit source websites. Instead of clicking through to read full articles, users increasingly rely on AI-generated summaries, limiting publishers’ opportunities to engage audiences directly. This shift challenges established business models and forces publishers to rethink how they distribute and monetize content in an AI-driven search environment.

Responding to AI search disruption

Despite these challenges, there are opportunities to influence how AI search evolves. Since AI search models rely on high-quality journalism to function effectively, publishers have the leverage to demand better attribution, transparency, and enforceable policies. This study suggests four key strategies for publishers:

  1. Advocate for stronger AI regulations: Industry groups and publishers can push for more transparent policies that require AI search engines to cite and link to sources properly.
  2. Negotiate licensing agreements: While existing agreements show inconsistencies, publishers can strengthen negotiations to ensure AI companies provide meaningful attribution and compensation.
  3. Develop AI-optimized content strategies: As publishers adapted to search engine optimization (SEO), they must now consider how AI models surface content and explore ways to maximize visibility.
  4. Educate readers on AI search limitations: Publishers can inform audiences about the risks of AI-generated misinformation and encourage direct engagement with trusted news sources.

The Tow Center study concludes that media companies must remain proactive and ensure that AI search platforms operate with fairness, transparency, and respect for original reporting. The long-term health of the news industry depends on ensuring that AI-driven discovery tools do not replace or undermine the very sources that power them. By pushing for industry-wide standards and holding AI companies accountable, publishers can work toward a digital ecosystem where AI search enhances, rather than diminishes, quality journalism.

human hands at a computer with lightening bolts to indicate Journalism and Journalists use of AI
Industry-Research | Innovation | Research

Journalists confront the reality of media use of AI

The rapid adoption of Generative AI (Gen AI) in newsrooms sparks important discussions among journalists and media professionals, especially about transparency and trust. Across the industry, publishers vary in how they communicate their AI strategies to their workforce. Reports suggest that some journalists seek more transparency around management’s AI implementation efforts and agreements with AI companies. This lack of clarity also applies to content, as some publishers explore AI-generated articles without consistently informing staff or readers.

A lack of transparency around AI fuels distrust

Mike Ananny and Jake Karr examine how news media unions are trying to manage and stabilize the use of Generative AI. Their analysis, How Media Unions Stabilize Technological Hype, draws from a review of industry reports, expert interviews, and case studies of newsrooms integrating generative AI. The methodology emphasizes qualitative insights to understand AI’s impact on editorial processes, ethics, and audience trust.

According to the authors’ analysis, many employees only learn about AI licensing deals through sudden announcements, often without prior consultation. Some must rely on external reporting to understand their company’s AI initiatives. Union representatives consistently face resistance when requesting information, reinforcing a broader mistrust of employer intentions.

However, solutions are emerging. Some unions are pushing for contractual guarantees to ensure greater transparency. The Associated Press and certain Gannett-owned publications propose contract language requiring 90 days’ notice before implementing new AI-related newsroom technology. Similarly, The Onion and Wirecutter unions successfully bargain for advance notice and transparency requirements regarding AI procurement. These efforts signal a path to restoring trust through openness and accountability.

Journalists defend creativity and quality

News professionals ensure accuracy, provide context, and uphold ethical standards that AI alone cannot fulfill. Ananny and Karr conclude that AI’s so-called “creativity” is a remix of existing human work, lacking the depth, insight, and contextual awareness that define quality journalism. No matter how advanced AI becomes, skilled journalists must verify facts, interpret events, and shape narratives with integrity.

Recognizing this, some media organizations are implementing safeguards. The Associated Press is committing to using Gen AI only with direct human oversight to maintain compliance with journalistic standards. Another example includes editorial employees reviewing AI content before publication at The Onion, The A.V. Club, Deadspin, and The Takeout. And the MinnPost treats AI-generated material as a source requiring human editing and fact-checking.

But beyond oversight, journalists are pushing for the right to decide whether or not to use AI. Many unions argue that workers, as experts in their field, should determine the appropriate role of AI in journalism. The CNET Media Workers Union demands the right to opt out of using AI if it fails to meet publishing standards. The Atlantic Union similarly insists that journalists may use AI within ethical guidelines, but no one should force them to do so.

These demands reflect a broader principle: journalism is, at its core, a human-driven endeavor. AI may assist but cannot replace the judgment, creativity, and accountability that define quality reporting. The analysis concludes that to integrate AI responsibly, newsrooms must prioritize transparency, trust, and human journalists’ role in safeguarding the profession’s integrity.

Beyond transparency and journalistic integrity, the rise of Gen AI raises significant ethical and legal questions. One of the most pressing concerns is intellectual property: Who owns the content produced by AI models trained on vast amounts of copyrighted material? Many publishers argue that AI-generated work lacks originality and merely regurgitates existing human-created content. This also raises potential plagiarism and copyright infringement issues. In response, some media companies are taking legal action.

Additionally, there is concern about AI’s ability to spread misinformation. Unlike human journalists, AI lacks the critical thinking skills to discern fact from fiction. Without rigorous oversight, AI-generated content can amplify biases, fabricate sources, and misinterpret data, posing a direct threat to public trust in news media.

Regulatory bodies are beginning to take notice. Governments worldwide are considering policies to ensure AI transparency and ethical implementation in journalism. For example, the European Union’s AI Act includes provisions requiring companies to disclose AI-generated content and implement safeguards against misinformation. The Federal Trade Commission warns companies against deceptive AI practices, signaling potential regulatory intervention in the media industry.

Balancing innovation and integrity for journalism and AI

Despite the challenges, AI’s presence in newsrooms is likely to grow. Some publishers are taking a proactive approach by developing AI policies that prioritize ethical considerations. Reuters, for example, offers internal guidelines to ensure journalists use AI tools responsibly and transparently. The BBC is similarly on board to maintain human oversight over AI-generated content and clearly labeling AI-assisted reporting.

Ultimately, the future of AI in journalism will depend on striking the right balance between technological innovation and journalistic integrity. The authors concur that if publishers prioritize transparency, enforce accountability, and uphold journalists’ fundamental role, AI can be a valuable tool rather than a disruptive force.

Advertising | Industry-Research | Research

News podcasts are wildly popular. But who’s listening?

Podcasts are transforming how Americans consume news, offering on-demand access to trusted voices and in-depth analysis. As traditional news formats evolve, podcasts have become a critical medium for audiences seeking timely, engaging, and diverse perspectives.

Second only to comedy, news podcasts are a dominant podcasting genre. A new report from Sounds Profitable, in partnership with Signal Hill Insights, finds that 31% of podcast listeners consumed news content in the past month. The findings underscore a significant shift in how Americans engage with news, moving away from traditional TV broadcasts and toward more personalized, on-demand listening experiences.

News podcast consumer demographics

The average age of a news podcast consumer is 47, closely mirroring the overall U.S. adult population. This starkly contrasts television news audiences, where the average age skews significantly older—70 for MSNBC, 69 for Fox News, and 67 for CNN. This demographic shift highlights how younger audiences gravitate toward podcasts as a preferred medium for staying informed. Balancing short-form daily news updates with longer-form analytical discussions allows podcast listeners to integrate news consumption seamlessly into their routines.

The social influence factor

One of the study’s more interesting findings is the role of social influence in driving news podcast discovery and engagement. News podcast listeners exhibit significantly higher levels of social sharing and recommendations compared to their non-news counterparts:

  • 73% receive podcast recommendations from friends and family, compared to 51% of non-news listeners.
  • 73% actively recommend podcasts to others, versus 49% of non-news listeners.
  • 83% say they are likely to listen to a podcast recommended by someone they know.

This word-of-mouth dynamic plays a crucial role in podcast adoption, highlighting the importance of personal connections in shaping media consumption habits. While platforms and algorithms contribute to discovery, personal recommendations remain the most powerful driver of engagement.

Additionally, news podcast listeners are more likely to consume content with others. Unlike other podcast genres that often cater to solo listening, news podcasts frequently become a shared experience. Group listening fosters discussions and deeper engagement with the content, whether in the car during a commute or as part of a morning routine. The study reveals that 88% of news podcast consumers who listen with others cite “listening while traveling” as a major benefit, compared to 66% of podcast listeners.

Advertising challenge and opportunity for news podcasts

Despite their high engagement levels, news podcast listeners are not immune to advertising fatigue. The study reveals that:

  • 21% have stopped listening to a podcast due to excessive ads.
  • 14% cite repetitive content as a reason for abandoning shows.

This finding challenges the assumption that strong host-listener relationships can completely counteract fatigue. Even among engaged audiences, there is a threshold for how much advertising they are willing to tolerate.

However, the research also uncovers a compelling opportunity for brands. News podcast listeners are more receptive to brand-sponsored content than the general podcast audience:

  • 61% say they are likely to listen to a brand-sponsored podcast.
  • 46% indicate that a company’s involvement makes them more likely to try a new podcast than 34% of non-news listeners.

Brands can forge meaningful connections with news podcast audiences by positioning themselves as content partners rather than just advertisers. By integrating seamlessly into the content, brands can enhance rather than disrupt the listener experience.

Podcasts and the future of news consumption

The traditional model of news consumption—gathering around the television at a fixed time—has largely faded. Instead, audiences curate their news experiences through digital and on-demand platforms. While social media and news websites play an important role in this transition, podcasts offer a unique advantage: deeper engagement and trust.

Unlike passive scrolling through headlines, listening to a news podcast requires intentional engagement. The hosts of these podcasts often become trusted voices, forming strong bonds with their audience. This level of trust is a significant draw, positioning news podcasts as a vital part of modern news consumption. However, the challenge lies in maintaining audience engagement without alienating listeners through excessive advertising.

The findings from this report offer a compelling look at the evolving media landscape. News podcasts attract a younger and more engaged audience and reshape how people discover, consume, and share news. The influence of social recommendations and the potential for shared listening experiences emphasize the unique role of news podcasts in today’s information ecosystem. Additionally, the nuanced relationship between advertising and engagement further solidifies their distinct position.

Journalism support organizations
Industry-Research | Research

It may be time to reform journalism support organizations

Journalism support organizations face scrutiny regarding efficiency, strategic direction, and overall impact. Critics argue that these organizations function as bureaucratic intermediaries, consuming philanthropic resources without adequately addressing the needs of local news outlets. At the same time, many journalists and news organizations find these support structures essential to their survival, particularly as they navigate an increasingly complex media landscape. This tension raises an important question: How can support organizations evolve to better serve the local news ecosystem?

A recent report, “The Critical Role Support Organizations Can Play in Maturing the Local News Field,” commissioned by the Democracy Fund explores this issue in depth. The report concludes that a broader “field-level agenda” is necessary to help define common goals, establish accountability metrics, and align efforts across the journalism ecosystem.

Field-level agenda for journalism support organizations

One of the report’s findings is the lack of a shared framework to measure success in the local news sector. Many support organizations operate with distinct, sometimes overlapping missions, making it difficult to assess their collective impact. The report proposes a “field-level agenda” as a solution—an overarching strategy that brings together diverse players to set priorities, establish success metrics, and enhance collaboration.

Support for this concept is widespread. Many industry leaders echoed the idea that a structured, collaborative framework is needed to ensure that support organizations advance the field. David Grant of Blue Engine Collaborative notes that the industry struggles to effectively define its audience and measure impact. Similarly, Mary Walter-Brown of News Revenue Hub emphasized that support organizations should be held accountable for how well they help news organizations grow.

Roles and responsibilities of the news support ecosystem

There is broad agreement on the need for better organization within the field. However, stakeholders are still grappling with who should lead this transformation. Many argue that philanthropic organizations should establish more explicit expectations for accountability and collaboration.

Damon Kiesow, Knight Chair in Journalism Innovation at the University of Missouri, suggests that funders could accelerate progress by requiring grantees to adhere to standardized impact metrics. Tristan Loper of the Lenfest Institute points to recent grantmaking initiatives emphasizing partnerships rather than competition as a potential model for fostering greater alignment within the sector.

Others question the long-term sustainability of specific support organizations. Instead, they propose that funders adopt a more strategic approach to determining which initiatives should last decades and which should be time-limited interventions. This perspective underscores the importance of developing a clear vision for the role of support organizations within the broader journalism landscape.

A collaborative approach to news media support

The report highlights that while no single experience defines all support organizations, there is a shared desire for greater collaboration. The report was given to participates for review and some leaders noted that the report’s initial tone seemed overly defensive. They felt it reinforced criticisms rather than highlighting these organizations’ indispensable work. However, this feedback reinforces the issue’s complexity. Support organizations must navigate a fine line between responding to critiques and advocating for their essential role in the ecosystem.

Stefanie Murray of the Center for Cooperative Media challenged the notion that support organizations lack accountability. She pointed out that many already adhere to rigorous funding requirements. This debate underscores the need for a nuanced discussion about defining and measuring success in ways that reflect the realities of different organizations.

Next steps for journalism support organizations

While this report provides valuable insights, it raises questions that merit further exploration. For instance, how can the support field evolve, and what lessons can we learn from other industries? What balance should exist between funding direct journalism (news organizations) and intermediary organizations providing infrastructure and support?

Several leaders who participated in the report have proposed expanding the taxonomy of support organizations to include groups that act as bridges between journalists and community organizations. Others call for a similar taxonomy for newsmakers and funders, which could help clarify how different entities fit within the broader ecosystem.

The challenges facing journalism support organizations are complex. However, the Democracy Fund’s research states the need for reform is clear. Establishing a field-level agenda could bring greater coherence, accountability, and impact to the sector. However, achieving this vision will require sustained collaboration among all stakeholders, support organizations, funders, and local news leaders.

As the industry evolves, support organizations must adapt to ensure they remain valuable partners to local newsrooms. By embracing a more strategic, data-driven approach to measuring success and fostering collaboration, the field can move toward a more sustainable and effective future for local journalism.

Industry-Research | Research

AI assistants error prone when it comes to news

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the way people access and consume news. With AI assistants increasingly serving as intermediaries between audiences and trusted news sources, it is essential to understand how accurately and reliably they present information. Unfortunately, according to recent research from the BBC, AI does not accurately deliver news.

In new research, the BBC is evaluating how well leading AI assistants—ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Copilot, Google’s Gemini, and Perplexity—deliver news-related answers. By granting these AI models access to its website, the BBC sought to assess its ability to effectively reference and represent its journalism.

This study examined the quality of AI-generated responses using 100 news-related questions, with BBC journalists evaluating them based on seven key criteria, including accuracy, attribution, and impartiality. The reviewers then determined whether the responses contain minor, significant, or no issues across these areas.

Significant errors in AI news

The results show that over half (51%) of AI-generated responses contain significant issues, while 91% exhibited some inaccuracy, bias, or misrepresentation. Specific issues include factual errors, misattribution of sources, and missing or misleading context. When evaluating how these AI assistants represented BBC content, the study finds that Gemini (34%), Copilot (27%), Perplexity (17%), and ChatGPT (15%) produce responses with errors in their use of BBC sources.

Accuracy and misinformation

AI-generated responses frequently report factual inaccuracies, even when citing BBC sources:

  • Gemini incorrectly states that the NHS discourages vaping as a smoking cessation method, despite BBC coverage explicitly confirming that the NHS supports vaping for smokers that want to quit.
  • Copilot misrepresents the case of rape survivor Gisèle Pelicot, falsely claiming that blackouts and memory loss led her to uncover the crimes against her.
  • Multiple assistants incorrectly report figures, such as significantly underestimating the number of UK prisoners released and misattributing Chrome’s market share statistics.
  • ChatGPT erroneously reports that Ismail Haniyeh, assassinated in July, is still an active Hamas leader.

Attribution and sourcing errors

AI assistants frequently misattribute or incorrectly source information. Some rely on older articles, leading to misleading conclusions. In several instances, assistants claim to summarize BBC reporting but include details that did not exist in the BBC articles.

Impartiality and editorialization

In addition to prevalent factual errors, AI assistants struggle with maintaining any semblance of journalistic impartiality. The study flags multiple instances where opinions are presented as facts, sometimes falsely attributing to the BBC as the source. For example, Perplexity characterized Iran’s actions in the Middle East conflict as “restrained” and described Israel’s response as “aggressive,” despite no such characterization appearing in the BBC article.

AI errors in news is a risk to public trust

These findings highlight serious risks in AI-generated news summaries. Misinformation can erode public trust in news media, whether due to factual errors, misleading context, or editorialized conclusions. Distortion of BBC’s content can have significant consequences. If these risks continue, audiences may question the credibility of BBC’s reporting.

AI assistants are set to play an increasing role in how people access news and because they do not generate meaningful traffic to media websites, it appears that the majority of people using them are not exploring further to determine the accuracy of the purported news AI delivers. This, it is critical that AI agents or chatbots endeavor to uphold the information ecosystem’s rigorous and trusted editorial standards.

Ultimately, AI developers are responsible for ensuring their products align with fundamental journalistic principles, including accuracy, impartiality, and reliable sourcing. The BBC warns that if these challenges go unaddressed, AI risks undermining the news organizations it depends on for credible information. As AI continues to evolve, the BBC emphasizes the need for the media industry to champion responsible AI integration to safeguard audiences and preserve journalism’s integrity.

Industry-Research

Dealmaking in the tech, media and telecom sectors set to accelerate

Dealmakers in the Technology, Media, and Telecommunications sectors (TMT) are entering 2025 with renewed optimism. This sector’s pivotal role in the AI boom drives investment opportunities, according to recent PwC research. Easing macroeconomic and geopolitical challenges, particularly in the U.S., has also set the stage for a favorable mergers and acquisitions (M&A) environment.

Media M&A market dynamics

PwC’s Global M&A Industry Trends Report notes that the U.S. administration’s focus on deregulation is poised to support megadeals (transactions exceeding $5 billion) and boost executive confidence. Anticipated interest rate cuts by central banks should foster a more vibrant M&A landscape.

According to PwC’s 28th Annual Global CEO Survey, 76% of TMT executives who made acquisitions in the past three years plan to pursue further deals within the next three years. This signals a strong strategic focus on media M&A for growth and innovation.

The evolving TMT landscape presents significant implications and opportunities for the media sector. These include:

1. AI as a growth driver

AI investments transform media content production, distribution, and audience engagement strategies. Premium media companies must harness AI to streamline workflows, deliver personalized content, and improve advertising efficiency.

2. Surge in media M&A activity

Media companies will likely pursue strategic acquisitions with regulatory and economic conditions becoming more favorable. Smart partnerships or mergers with technology firms can enhance digital capabilities and foster AI-driven innovations.

3. Capital spending

Extending capital investment in energy and real estate opens new avenues for media companies. Given these market dynamics, collaboration involving data centers or energy-efficient content delivery networks could become significant.

A more relaxed regulatory environment may facilitate the way for innovative cross-platform deals and media-tech partnerships. For some, this will unlock new revenue streams.

5. Evolving content and platform strategies

The shift in media consumption—toward digital-first platforms, podcasts, and creator-generated content—requires media companies to reassess their content strategies. Multi-platform distribution and niche content offerings will be critical to staying competitive.

6. Investor confidence spurs media M&A

Reduced macroeconomic pressures and lower interest rates will likely attract private equity investments. This will fuel innovation and expansion for forward-thinking media companies.

AI: a catalyst for investment

AI remains a focal point for investment, particularly in the U.S. In January 2025, a landmark $500 billion joint venture between OpenAI, Oracle, and SoftBank to develop a network of AI data centers. This venture should reinforce the U.S.’s position as a global AI hub.

Companies channeling capital into high-growth areas such as data analytics, automation, and generative AI enhance products to drive future growth. Notable deals in 2024, including Cisco’s $28 billion acquisition of Splunk and HPE’s $14 billion acquisition of Juniper Networks, exemplify this trend.

Regulatory and geopolitical shifts

The new administration is undergoing significant changes in the U.S. regulatory landscape. Appointments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should foster a more deregulated environment, easing barriers to media M&A. These changes may have global implications, influencing deal activity in other regions.

After a prolonged period of high interest rates, central banks expect to implement gradual rate cuts in 2025. Lower borrowing costs will likely invigorate financial sponsors, reversing the trend toward corporate-led deals and a resurgence in private equity investment.

Media industry evolution

As the media landscape transforms, digital-first platforms necessitate strategic portfolio assessments. As companies adapt, transformative M&A, including divestitures of non-core assets, is likely. Vivendi’s recent restructuring and Comcast’s strategic moves exemplify this trend.

The Technology, Media, and Telecommunications sectors (TMT)sector is ready for a resurgence in M&A activity in 2025. The convergence of AI-driven innovation, regulatory shifts, and capital market dynamics creates fertile ground for strategic acquisitions. Those media businesses that are agile and responsive will seize new opportunities and navigate well in this dynamic landscape.

DCN-Research | Research

DCN Digital Media Subscription Tracking Report: insights into a dynamic market

The subscription media landscape continues to evolve, reshaping how consumers engage with digital content and how businesses strategize to maintain their market share. As digital media matures and price sensitivity increases, the market has responded with innovative pricing models and premium offerings.

The DCN Digital Media Subscription Tracking Report provides insights into these changes, offering year-over-year trends and brand-specific data exclusive to DCN members. Here are key highlights from the latest report:

  • Subscriptions Decline, Spending Rises: While the average household subscription count fell by 4% in Q4 2024, annual spending on digital subscriptions grew 7%, indicating a shift toward prioritizing high-value services.
  • Bundling Gains Popularity: 59% of SVOD subscribers opted for bundles in Q4 2024, up from 52% earlier in the year, as consumers seek value-driven solutions.
  • Ad-Supported Tiers Surge: Consumers increasingly choose ad-supported streaming services to cut costs. SVOD with ads saw a 14% increase, while no-ad services declined by 12%.
  • Top Performers in SVOD: Amazon Prime Video with ads quickly ascended to the top spot among users. Hulu with ads rose to third, Peacock with ads rose to fourth, while Disney+ Premium with no ads dropped to fifth place.

As the media subscription landscape continues to evolve, innovation in bundling and tiered options remains crucial. These findings underscore the resilience of premium digital content and the importance of staying attuned to evolving consumer needs.

DCN members can access after logging in, or registering an account (top right corner). Once logged in, a download button will appear below this text.

©2025 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.