Today’s headlines about artificial intelligence (AI) describe it as a transformative force reshaping entertainment and technology. Companies across the spectrum are adopting AI to streamline operations, enhance content production, marketing, and distribution efficiencies, and revolutionize the viewer experience. But are consumers keeping pace with this rapid evolution and what do they think about it?
Popular AI tools like OpenAI’s GPT-4 and DALL-E generate images, music, scripts, games, and even fully realized ads and video content. These advancements blur the lines between “real” and “fake” content. Post-production AI tools can now enhance not just backgrounds and environments but also character identities and storylines. AI algorithms also help to better match viewers with content they love, refining recommendation systems and personalizing viewer experiences.
Consumer awareness and usage of AI
A recent report by HUB, part of the Entertainment & Technology Tracker series, delves into consumer awareness and understanding of AI’s current capabilities. The study reveals that 71% of respondents are familiar with “generative AI,” and only 18% feel “very confident” in explaining what it is and does. Interestingly, 57% of respondents use one or more generative AI models, highlighting a significant gap between awareness and deep understanding.
Perceptions of AI: good vs. bad
The report finds that nearly half of the respondents view AI as a positive development, compared to about a quarter who see it as potentially negative. Among those who view AI favorably or unfavorably, a common belief is that AI fundamentally changes how we live and work. However, there are notable concerns, particularly around privacy, employment risks, and the potential misuse of AI for creating deepfake content.
Consumer interaction with AI
Consumers are increasingly interested in AI-driven features that enhance content discovery and selection. Despite this interest, there is a clear preference for human creativity in certain domains. For example, more consumers believe humans outperform AI in tasks like writing music or dialogue. Conversely, they view AI as equally capable of generating game dialogue or trailers and superior in tasks like CGI, writing descriptions, or creating subtitles.
The desire for transparency in AI-generated content is also strong. According to the report, 67% of respondents want to know if something is created using AI, underscoring the need for clear labeling and communication from content creators.
AI opportunities and challenges for the entertainment industry
For media executives, the rapid integration of AI presents both significant opportunities and challenges. AI streamlines production processes, reduces costs, and enables the creation of more personalized and engaging content. However, it raises critical questions about the balance between automation and human creativity. It also questions the ethical implications of AI use, and the need to address consumer concerns around transparency and data privacy.
AI is reshaping how content is produced and consumed and redefining the relationship between creators and audiences. As the industry adapts, embracing AI’s potential while addressing its challenges is key to sustaining growth and innovation in the entertainment sector.
The HUB report is useful for media executives looking to stay ahead in this rapidly changing landscape. By tracking consumer sentiment and behavior, companies can better anticipate trends, address concerns, and leverage AI to create a more dynamic and responsive entertainment ecosystem.
As AI continues to evolve, media companies must navigate these complexities strategically. Investing in AI technologies that enhance viewer engagement while maintaining transparency and ethical standards is crucial. Additionally, fostering consumer education around AI capabilities and limitations helps bridge the gap between consumer awareness and understanding.
The stories told on screen shape perceptions and inspire change. They also reflect society’s evolving identity. Understanding the diversity of those who create and star in these stories is critical to fostering an entertainment industry that genuinely mirrors the richness of the human experience. Representation in key creative roles shapes shared narratives and affects how audiences resonate with and engage with these stories, ultimately driving revenue growth.
The Hollywood Diversity Report, Part 1 highlights the undeniable link between diversity and financial success in Hollywood. In 2023, global box office revenue rose 31% to $33.9 billion, while the North American box office grew 21% to $9.07 billion. However, despite these gains, the domestic box office lags 21% behind the 2017-2019 average. The future of movie-going remains uncertain as the industry navigates the pressure of changing audience expectations and preferences, testing the industry’s resilience and capacity for innovation.
The theatrical dataset mirrors this trend. The 109 English-language films in the 2023 dataset represent a 22% increase from 2022 but fell short of the 146 films in the 2019 dataset. In 2023, theatricals span 12 primary genres. Action, constitutes 27.5% of releases, dominates, followed by comedy (20.2%), horror (12.8%), animation and biography (9.2% each), and drama (8.3%). While action and horror hold steady, comedy and biography have grown, animation dipped slightly, and drama declined. Biopics and dramedies emerge as notable subcategories.
Representation in casting
Cast diversity continues to evolve. Films with over 50% BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) casts represent the plurality of top films for the first time in 2023, which marks a significant milestone in a 13-year trend. In 2011, 51.2% of films had less than 11% BIPOC representation; by 2023, this figure dropped to 8.5%. However, actors with disabilities remain largely absent, with 61.3% of films including no known disabled actors.
Actors with disabilities did experience modest gains, increasing their share of leads to 11.3%. However, visible disabilities remain absent among top leads. Women’s share of lead roles declined to 32.1% in 2023 from 38.6% in 2022, marking a significant setback. Female leads would need an 18% increase to achieve parity with male leads. Films with BIPOC leads often fall at opposite ends of the budget spectrum, either under $10 million or exceeding $100 million, reflecting a “feast or famine” dynamic.
Representation gaps persist across racial and ethnic groups. Latinx and multiracial actors remain underrepresented in all roles, while Black, Asian, Native, and Asian, Middle Eastern, and Northern African (MENA) actors are approaching proportionate representation. Gender disparities prevail; except for Latinas, women in every racial and ethnic group are underrepresented compared to their male counterparts.
Box office receipts
Despite continued disparities, box office performance reinforces the demand for diverse content. Films with 31-40% BIPOC casts achieve the highest median global box office receipts, while those with less than 11% perform the poorest. Median return on investment peaks for films with 41-50% BIPOC casts.
Audiences increasingly support diverse casts, with BIPOC moviegoers buying the most opening weekend tickets for seven of the top 10 films in 2023. Female audiences account for most ticket sales for three of the top 10 films, while 18- to 34-year-olds dominate ticket purchases for six of the top 10 films.
Audience preferences align with representation trends. Films with diverse casts achieve higher box office performance across global, domestic, and opening weekend metrics. Nine of the top 10 global box office films feature cast members with over 30% BIPOC representation, demonstrating the commercial success of diversity. The data underscores the importance of reflecting America’s increasingly diverse audience in theatrical releases.
Streaming genre trends and budget allocations
The 2024 Hollywood Diversity Report: Part 2 focuses on the top 100 English-language streaming films from 2023. It offers insights into genre trends, budget allocations, and representation among leads, directors, and writers. As outlined in Part 1, the theatrical film industry registers incremental recovery in 2023, but streaming remained dominant despite studios reducing original content production. This strategic pullback coincided with economic uncertainties and labor disputes, resulting in 115 streaming original releases compared to 161 in 2022.
Comedy led streaming releases at 30%, followed by drama (17%) and action (14%). Notable shifts included a rise in biography films (4% to 10%) and a decline in animated features (13% to 9%). Budget distribution starkly contrasted with theatrical films: 61.3% of streaming films had budgets under $20 million, compared to 30.3% of theatrical releases. Only 3.2% of streaming films had blockbuster budgets ($100 million or more), dwarfed by 25.7% for theatrical films.
Representation in leading roles
BIPOC and women actors achieved proportional representation among leads in streaming films in 2023, marking progress since 2022. However, disparities persisted within specific groups. Latinx (8%) and Asian (4%) leads remained underrepresented, while Black (16%) and Middle Eastern/North African (MENA) leads were overrepresented. Native (1%) and multiracial (12%) actors approached proportional representation. Gender dynamics varied by group: women outnumbered men among white, multiracial, and MENA leads, while men predominated among Black, Latinx, Asian, and Native leads.
Budget disparities also reflected systemic inequities. White male leads were most likely to star in films with budgets over $20 million (57.2%), while BIPOC leads (58.6%) and White female leads (77.5%) frequently headlined films under $20 million. Women with disabilities remained underrepresented despite an increase in lead roles from 6.1% in 2022 to 9% in 2023, with no visible disabilities represented.
Directors and writers
BIPOC and women directors saw gains but remained underrepresented in 2023. Women directors faced a budget ceiling of $50 million, while BIPOC directors maxed at $100 million, with significant opportunities skewed toward white men. Among writers, similar patterns emerged. Streaming films with BIPOC and women writers featured more diverse and balanced casts, yet these groups remained underrepresented. Multiracial and MENA writers neared proportional representation. However, shares for Black, Latinx, and Asian writers fell short.
These reports underscore the ongoing evolution of Hollywood’s streaming ecosystem. While strides in representation are evident, industry efforts still need to achieve inclusiveness across all facets of production. Examining theatrical and streaming releases as viewing habits evolve offers valuable insights into each platform’s unique challenges and opportunities. These distinctions help illuminate how representation impacts storytelling, audience reach, and industry success across a diverse and changing media landscape.
In the first eight months of 2024, digital channels captured $107 billion in media spending, or nearly two-thirds of all available advertising dollars in the U.S.
Is it the end of the road for legacy advertising channels like print, TV, radio or out-of-home?
Keeping track of media spending
I’ve spent the past 20 years working in advertising, on the buy side, sell side, and right in the middle as a third-party data provider. I can’t recall a time when the industry didn’t predict that digital advertising would one day overtake traditional advertising. In the U.S., that threshold was reached in 2019 — to no one’s surprise — and digital media now accounts for 65% of all media spend around the country. But over the past year, I’ve noticed a fascinating new dynamic at play.
It appears that new digital channels aren’t stealing media dollars from traditional channels like they might have done in the past, but from other digital channels.
At MediaRadar, we monitor millions of brands around the clock and keep track of their day-to-day media investment decisions. We help advertisers understand what their competitors are up to and publish regular public reports on the state of the industry. We just released a new comprehensive report that shows that digital channels are continuing to grow, but at uneven rates, and that some traditional channels are surprisingly resilient, against all odds. For media executives looking to stand out in an incredibly crowded media environment, the strategic implications are momentous.
Digital channels dominate media spending budgets
There’s no question that digital media still dominates media budgets across most industries — from CPG to department stores, automotive, quick-service restaurants (QSRs), tech, or financial services. Digital channels like paid search, mobile, or paid social offer advertisers superior targeting capabilities, immersive user experiences, and a direct link to crucial outcome metrics like sales and new subscriptions.
Paid Search, for instance, grew 6% for the Jan-Aug 2024 period compared to the same period in 2023. Mobile grew 9% and display advertising 20%, buoyed by their versatility along the whole consumer journey (from top-funnel brand awareness campaigns to bottom-funnel sales conversions) and a mature programmatic ecosystem.
Traditional channels show resilience
Traditional channels aren’t growing as fast but they’re holding their ground. Linear TV, for instance, experienced a 3% increase in spending in 2024, driven by the continued appeal of high-profile sporting events and record-breaking political ad spending. These events draw large, engaged audiences to linear TV, and that won’t stop anytime soon now that TV rights for the NFL and NBA have been renegotiated.
Local radio remained relatively stable too (it declined by 1% in 2024), offering consistent reach for both local and national advertisers. Its ability to target specific geographic areas with tailored messaging continues to make it invaluable for local businesses.
Where to draw the line?
What should we make of new media channels like over-the-top (OTT) streaming, podcasts, or retail media? Are they new digital channels or digital reincarnations of traditional media channels with a different distribution method?
We’re starting to see some evidence that much of the money being poured into OTT these days isn’t coming from linear TV budgets anymore but from other digital channels, like online video. Similarly, podcasts aren’t cannibalizing local radio, and retail media isn’t growing at the expense of in-store advertising. Those new channels are as much a threat to digital media dollars as they are to traditional media dollars.
Traditional media channels are reinventing themselves for the digital age, and the line is starting to blur between traditional and digital media. At the Upfronts and NewFronts this year, streaming will be a central part of the conversation, not just a sideshow, and it will be crucial for media executives to offer combined audience packages that integrate the reach of traditional media with the targeting capabilities of streaming platforms.
Cross-channel synergies are the future
With so much fragmentation in the media environment, it’s become extremely difficult for brands to reach their target customers and prospects. Omnichannel marketing has become a top priority for them, which means that media companies need to collaborate more with one another to present a united front — from planning to activation and measurement.
Now more than ever, a well-balanced media mix is crucial for advertisers to maximize reach and engagement. Digital channels like paid search (24% of total media spend), mobile (14%), or paid social (10%) are leading the charge. But traditional media like linear TV (23%), radio (3%), and even print (6%) still hold significant value, especially near the top of the funnel. It’s time to develop more cross-channel synergies so that advertisers may curate a consistent and engaging user experience across all the touchpoints in their media mix, captivate consumers, and nurture long-lasting relationships with them. AI and advanced analytics can help, but only if the strategy is clear.
So yes, after years of digital channels hijacking media dollars from legacy channels, legacy channels are now flipping the script and reinventing themselves on the back of digital channels. In 2025 and beyond, let’s not talk about who is stealing what share of voice from whom anymore. Rather, let us focus on working together to meet advertisers’ objectives and deliver a better all-around consumer experience. The advertising pie will take care of itself.
Journalism faces a significant challenge in maintaining trust as audiences increasingly turn to online content creators who produce work resembling traditional journalism. Although journalism remains a cornerstone of democracy, it now competes with creators who often build large and deeply engaged followings, which rival (or even surpass) established news outlets. A new report suggests that this trend is driven by the contrasting ways journalists and creators connect with their audiences.
In The Future of Trustworthy Information, Julia Angwin explores the shifting dynamics of trust in the digital age. Through her work at the Shorenstein Center, she is exploring the roles of content creators and how they compete with, and can inform the work of traditional journalists. In particular, she examines their relationships through the lens of who today’s audiences trust and why.
Benevolence: Motives that prioritize the audience’s best interests.
Integrity: Adherence to principles that align with the audience’s values.
These elements are critical for both creators and journalists but manifest differently in their practices.
Demonstrating ability
Traditional journalism emphasizes expertise in reporting processes—verifying facts, cultivating sources, and concise writing—but often fails to make this expertise transparent to the public. Reporters rarely highlight their qualifications, and newsroom norms discourage reliance on personal expertise. Efforts to enhance trust, such as detailed reporter biographies, remain underutilized and ineffective.
In contrast, creators highlight their expertise directly. Many specialize in specific domains, such as doctors debunking medical misinformation or leather workers analyzing luxury handbags, and prominently feature their credentials. They tailor storytelling to build trust by guiding audiences through evidence before reaching conclusions. They also emphasize visual storytelling, as today’s audiences gravitate towards video-based content. The use of green screens capitalizes on this trend while reinforcing credibility by presenting data in real-time.
Perceived benevolence
Audiences increasingly question journalists’ benevolence, with only 23% of Americans believing national news organizations prioritize the public’s best interests. Skepticism stems from perceived political biases, sensationalism, and the profit motives of large media conglomerates. Individual journalists often struggle to overcome institutional distrust, especially when constrained by editorial policies.
Interestingly, audiences do not perceive creators as benevolent either. Particularly when it comes to product reviews, audiences are skeptical of trustworthiness. Creators counter this by positioning themselves as community servants. They frequently respond to audience requests and tailor content to viewer interests. Transparency about financial motives sets them apart; many creators decline brand partnerships or disclose them carefully, recognizing authenticity strengthens trust. This direct engagement fosters a perception of benevolence that journalists often lack.
Upholding integrity
Both journalists and creators navigate a low-trust digital environment where misinformation proliferates. Accusations of sensationalism or bias often undermine journalistic integrity, while creators address skepticism around product endorsements. To reinforce integrity, creators disclose sources, provide citations, and avoid overt monetization. Visual evidence and informal presentation styles humanize creators, enhancing their perceived honesty.
Implications for traditional journalism
The rise of content creators offers valuable lessons for journalism. Creators enter the digital space understanding that trust must be earned, not assumed. Their focus on transparency, responsiveness, and audience engagement contrasts with journalism’s historical reliance on legacy credibility. This gap underscores the need for journalists to adopt practices that tangibly demonstrate trustworthiness. These practices include showcasing expertise, engaging directly with audiences, and maintaining transparency about financial and editorial motivations.
Journalists must prioritize meaningful accountability to rebuild trust with the public. They often need more consequences for mistakes than creators, who face immediate audience scrutiny for errors. Engaging directly with affected communities and investing in public editors and reader feedback mechanisms can enhance transparency and foster trust. While resource constraints are real, addressing the trust deficit is essential to journalism’s core mission: holding power accountable. Small steps in this direction can help restore credibility and public confidence.
OpenAI’s ChatGPT Search, an AI-driven alternative to traditional search engines, raises pressing concerns for news publishers, including attribution errors. OpenAI promotes its collaboration with select news organizations and uses mechanisms like robots.txt files to give publishers some control over their content, However, questions loom about its impact on journalism. These worries echo the backlash from two years ago when publishers discovered their content was used—without consent—to train OpenAI’s models.
OpenAI markets ChatGPT Search as a platform to enhance publisher reach. Yet, new research from the Tow Center for Digital Journalism, as reported in the Columbia Journalism Review, reveals significant issues with the tool’s ability to accurately attribute and represent content. This undermines trust between publishers who are working with OpenAI. It also represents a significant concern for publishers whose content is misattributed or misrepresented because of the risk of reputational damage. And, as such, it poses challenges for newsrooms adopting AI technologies.
Unreliable attribution and false confidence
The Tow Center analyzed ChatGPT Search using 200 traceable quotes from 20 publishers, including those with licensing agreements, those in litigation, and unaffiliated entities. Traditional search engines consistently surface the original articles in the top three results.
However, ChatGPT Search fails to correctly attribute 153 of the quotes. It fabricates citations, credits rewritten versions of articles or misattributes sources. Notably, in only seven cases, it admits being unable to locate the source, prioritizing plausible but incorrect answers over transparency.
Unlike traditional search engines that clearly indicate when no match is found, ChatGPT’s confident delivery of inaccurate citations risks misleading users and damaging the credibility of referenced publishers. The findings of these ChatGPT search errors emphasize the risks of integrating AI-driven search tools into journalism amid ongoing struggles with content protection.
Accurate attribution is critical for news organizations to maintain trust, brand value, and loyalty. However, ChatGPT Search frequently distances users from original sources by misidentifying premium publications or favoring syndicated or plagiarized versions.
For example, when identifying a New York Times quote, ChatGPT attributes it to a site that copied the article without credit. Such misrepresentation undermines intellectual property rights and rewards unethical practices. Similarly, it often cites syndicated versions of articles, such as attributing a Government Technology piece to MIT Technology Review, diluting the originating publisher’s visibility and impact.
These errors exacerbate publishers’ challenges with audience fragmentation and declining revenues. ChatGPT’s attribution flaws risk further eroding the vital connection between publishers and their readers.
Crawler policies and content control
In its marketing, OpenAI emphasizes its respect for publisher preferences via robots.txt files. However, the Tow Center’s findings suggest otherwise. Yet even those publishers that block OpenAI’s crawlers are not immune to misrepresentation. And those allowing crawler access saw little improvement in citation accuracy.
For instance, despite blocking OpenAI crawlers, the New York Times experienced content misattributions. Publications like The Atlantic and the New York Post, which have licensing agreements and permit crawler access, also faced frequent errors.
This inconsistency highlights publishers’ limited control over how ChatGPT Search represents their content. Blocking crawlers does not guarantee protection, and opting in does not ensure better outcomes.
Transparency, trust and revenue impact of ChatGPT errors
A core problem with ChatGPT Search lies in its lack of transparency. When it cannot access or verify a source, the AI often forms plausible but inaccurate responses. Thus, it leaves users unable to discern reliability.
Unlike traditional search engines, which clearly signal when no results match a query, ChatGPT usually fails to communicate uncertainty. This opacity risks misleading users and eroding trust in both the platform and the referenced publishers.
The rapid adoption of AI-driven tools like ChatGPT Search poses significant challenges for publishers. With an estimated 15 million U.S. users starting their searches on AI platforms, the potential disruption to search-driven traffic is profound. Publishers reliant on visibility for subscriptions, advertising, or membership revenue face growing threats. If readers cannot reliably trace content to its source, publishers lose critical opportunities for engagement and monetization.
What needs to change
To foster a sustainable relationship with newsrooms, Tow’s research recommends that OpenAI must address these challenges:
Commit to transparent attribution: ChatGPT must accurately cite original sources or explicitly indicate when an answer cannot be provided.
Increase accountability: To address systemic issues, meaningful partnerships with newsrooms—beyond select licensing deals—are essential.
Enable publisher control: Tools empowering publishers to dictate content access and representation will signal good faith.
ChatGPT Search’s flaws underscore the tensions between generative AI platforms and the news industry. While OpenAI claims to collaborate with publishers, its inconsistent handling of content undermines trust and fails to protect intellectual property.
As generative AI reshapes the future of search, publishers must advocate for stronger safeguards and fairer partnerships to ensure their work is accurately represented and valued. By addressing these issues, AI platforms and newsrooms can build a foundation for mutual benefit—and one that that will ultimately benefit consumers as well.
News influencers are transforming how people consume information on social media, emerging as a key force in the digital landscape. This new breed of news influencers are defined as having at least 100,000 followers on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube and who frequently post about news topics. Most news influencers operate independently, with over three-quarters (77%) having no current or prior affiliation with a news organization. They combine personal branding with the dissemination of information, carving out a space that blends elements of journalism and entertainment with questionable accuracy.
A recent Pew Research Center study, America’s News Influencers, finds that roughly one in five U.S. adults regularly gets news from influencers. Younger audiences—particularly those aged 18 to 29—are even more likely to do so. Among this age group, 37% rely on influencers for updates on current events.
News influencers reach their audiences through multiple platforms, with X currently leading the way. About 85% of Pew’s sampled influencers are active on X, followed by Instagram (50%) and YouTube (44%). Many adopt a cross-platform strategy, with some maintaining a presence on five or more sites. While these news influencers skew largely male, TikTok stands out for its relatively balanced gender representation among influencers.
Diverse content and political landscape
Americans who follow news influencers encounter diverse content, including factual updates (90%), opinions (87%), humor (87%), and breaking news (83%). Among those consuming opinions, 61% report seeing a mix of views they agree and disagree with, while 30% say they mostly encounter opinions they agree with. Only 2% see information with which they mostly disagree.
Influencers cover equally wide-ranging topics, though politics and government dominate their content. However, this focus reflects the study’s fielding period—July 15 to August 4, 2024. During this time, significant events included the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, the first assassination attempt on Donald Trump, and President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race. While U.S. politics takes center stage, influencers also address social issues such as race, LGBTQ+ rights, and abortion, along with international events.
Despite their prominence, news influencers present a complex picture regarding political orientation. Slightly more influencers identify as right-leaning (27%) than left-leaning (21%), though half remain politically neutral. TikTok stands out as the only platform where left-leaning influencers outnumber right-leaning ones.
Audiences value news influencers’ perspectives
Audiences perceive news influencers as offering distinct and valuable perspectives. Most followers believe these influencers help them better understand current events. Among those who rely on influencers for news, 65% say they enhance their understanding of current events and civic issues, while only 9% feel more confused. Another 26% say influencers make little difference in their comprehension.
When comparing news from influencers to other sources, 70% find it at least somewhat different. About 23% describe it as extremely or very different, while 29% see little to no difference.
News influencers with and without industry experience differ
News influencers with and without news media industry experience differ notably in their public personas. Those tied to news organizations are less likely to express political leanings; 64% avoid clear political orientation, compared to 44% of non-industry influencers. Although similar proportions identify as right-leaning (25% vs. 27%), just 9% of industry-tied influencers identify as left-leaning, compared to 25% of non-industry influencers.
Non-industry influencers are also more likely to connect their profiles to specific values or identities, with 22% doing so versus just 2% of industry-tied influencers. For instance, 8% of non-industry influencers support LGBTQ+ rights or identify as LGBTQ+, while none with industry experience express such views.
This research highlights the growing impact of news influencers in the modern information ecosystem. Operating largely outside traditional media structures, they offer audiences a mix of facts, opinions, and entertainment. While their rise enables more personalized and diverse information consumption, it raises important questions about accuracy, accountability, and the evolving role of professional journalism in a landscape increasingly dominated by independent digital voices.
Generative AI enables the production of content at scale. It has been found to generate narratives with essential elements like concrete characters, logical plot development, and coherence, which are all key to the story quality. Narratives play a vital role in conveying culture, enforcing norms, and sharing knowledge. But what happens to authenticity, emotion, and persuasive power in AI-generated stories?
A recent report by Haoran Chu and Sixiao Liu, Can AI Tell Good Stories?, examines AI’s potential to craft narratives that engage audiences and influence beliefs and behaviors. Through a new three-part series of studies, these researchers build on studies highlighting tools like ChatGPT, which show promise for AI-driven storytelling. However, they emphasize that impactful storytelling relies on authenticity, which goes beyond factual accuracy. Chu and Liu question ChatGPT’s ability to evoke narrative immersion and persuasion, elements often anchored in human creativity and personal experience.
The researchers also investigate whether labeling a story as AI-generated affects reader engagement. Overall, the study examines AI’s potential to tell compelling stories and influence audiences and how AI-generated stories compare to traditional human storytelling.
Study 1: Can AI tell good stories?
In the first study, Chu and Liu explore the question, “Can AI tell good stories?” They examine whether AI-generated narratives can captivate and impact audiences as deeply as human-created ones. This study emphasizes AI’s technical abilities in crafting stories. The researchers program AI to create stories, from short fictional tales to complex, multi-layered narratives, and then analyze how these AI-generated stories affect people emotionally and intellectually.
The study finds that AI can adhere to structural storytelling elements like character development, conflict, and resolution. Yet, it often needs more depth of human experiences and emotions that make stories compelling. Despite this, AI-generated narratives sometimes capture audience interest and influence certain beliefs or attitudes. The study concludes that AI storytelling has limitations but is advancing quickly, with promising potential for more engaging narratives. The researchers suggest that enhancing AI’s emotional intelligence and contextual understanding could further improve its storytelling capabilities.
Study 2: The influence of AI-generated stories on beliefs and behavior
The second study goes beyond the question of AI’s ability to tell a good story to ask whether AI-generated stories can genuinely influence beliefs and behaviors. This research investigates whether AI-crafted stories can impact audiences as effectively as human-created ones. It focuses on the potential to shape opinions, foster empathy, or inspire actions.
In this study, participants read stories created by either humans or AI. The participants are unaware of the source of each story, allowing the researchers to assess the impact of the content without bias. They find that AI-generated stories could somewhat influence readers’ opinions and emotions, especially regarding straightforward or factual topics. However, human-created stories tend to have a more substantial and lasting effect on the audience for more nuanced or emotionally charged subjects.
The study suggests that while AI-generated stories have the potential to influence behavior, they often lack the subtlety and emotional complexity required to create deep, long-lasting connections. This limitation is likely because AI needs more personal experience and an understanding of human emotions, which can make its narratives feel less relatable or profound. Despite these limitations, the study notes that AI storytelling could still be useful in specific contexts, such as educational or informative storytelling.
Study 3: Comparing AI and human storytelling
The third study directly compares AI storytelling with human storytelling, examining their strengths and weaknesses. This study seeks to understand whether AI can tell a good story and where it falls short compared to human creativity. The researchers analyze the storytelling components, including character development, emotional appeal, and the ability to engage audiences.
The findings show that while AI excels at consistency and structure. However, it struggles with the abstract aspects of storytelling, such as creating realistic emotions and building complex character relationships. For example, AI can write a well-organized story with a clear beginning, middle, and end but often struggles with subtleties like irony, humor, or empathy.
On the other hand, human storytellers can draw from personal experiences and emotions to create stories that resonate more deeply. This is particularly important for genres that rely on empathy, like drama or romance, where the audience connects with the characters’ emotional journeys.
AI can create content. It can’t tell impactful stories (yet)
The study concludes that while AI might be useful for quickly producing structured content, it needs to improve its ability to replicate the depth of human storytelling. However, it also points out that AI can be a powerful tool when paired with human creativity. For instance, AI can generate story ideas, help with content organization, or even create drafts that human writers can refine and deepen.
These three studies provide a nuanced understanding of AI storytelling. The first study finds that AI has the structural capability to create stories but lacks the depth of human experiences. The second study shows that AI-generated stories can influence beliefs and behaviors but are less impactful than human stories for emotionally complex topics. The third study compares AI storytelling to human storytelling, showing that while AI is effective in structured storytelling, it struggles with emotional depth and complexity. Together, these studies suggest that AI storytelling is still most effective when complemented by human creativity and emotional insight.
As large language models (LLMs) evolve from experimental tools to valuable assets, transparency in their data sourcing is rapidly declining. Initially, datasets were openly shared, allowing the public to examine the content used for training. However, LLM companies tightly guard their data sources today, leading to new intellectual property (IP) conflicts. Many media companies are pursuing litigation to protect their content from unauthorized use in AI training. At the same time, courts, regulators, and policymakers are engaged in debates over content ownership and the responsibilities of large language model (LLM) developers.
A new report by George Wukoson, Ziff Davis’ lead AI attorney, and Joey Fortuna, the company’s chief technology officer, sheds light on the nature of data sources used by major LLMs. Their researchreveals that AI developers often favor high-quality content when selecting training data, especially content owned by premium media companies. Their findings support discussions around publishers’ IP rights, content licensing, and the ethical dimensions of AI development.
Dataset analysis and key findings
Wukoson and Fortuna’s research uses Domain Authority (DA), a metric developed by Moz for search engine optimization, to measure the prominence of domains in several LLM training datasets. They examine Common Crawl, C4, OpenWebText, and OpenWebText2, and analyze how curation levels affect the inclusion of content from high-DA, premium sources.
Their findings showed that as datasets become more curated, the share of content from high-quality publishers rises significantly. Key findings from the research:
1. Increasing inclusion of premium content
In less curated datasets like Common Crawl, content from major media companies only makes up about 0.44%. However, in OpenWebText2, a highly curated dataset, content from these companies jumps to 12.04%. This shift indicates that LLM developers selectively incorporate reputable sources to improve the quality and accuracy of the model’s output.
2. Higher DA correlates with higher curation levels
Common Crawl, an uncurated dataset, has over 50% of domains with DA scores below 10, indicating that it includes a significant amount of low-authority content. In contrast, OpenWebText2 comprises 39.4% of domains with DA scores between 90 and 100, reflecting a preference for high-authority, reliable sources as datasets undergo curation.
3. Prominence of premium content
Leading publishers like The New York Times and News Corp consistently appear in the top DA range (90–100), reflecting their high authority in the dataset rankings. Their dominance in these datasets suggests that LLMs are more frequently training on established news and media sources. This gives these outlets a stronger influence in shaping model behavior and responses.
These trends show a pattern where the curation of training datasets systematically filters out lower-quality sources, favoring reputable, high-DA domains. As a result, LLMs benefit from exposure to high-quality, well-sourced content, which may enhance their performance but raise concerns about IP use and representation.
Ethical and legal implications
Prioritizing high-quality, high-DA content in LLM datasets escalates legal disputes between media companies and AI firms. For example, the New York Times has filed a copyright infringement suit against major AI developers. They argue that these AI companies profit from high-quality content without appropriate compensation to the original publishers.
As LLMs continue transforming industries, the value of high-quality, curated content becomes increasingly apparent. The authors’ analysis shows that curation prioritizes content from high-DA, reputable media content companies, amplifying their role in shaping model outcomes. This trend will likely intensify as LLM companies refine their training methodologies, sparking further debate over intellectual property and AI firms’ financial obligations to content creators. The findings here call for a broader dialogue around data licensing and compensation frameworks that reflect the mutual value between content creators and AI innovators.
Today’s vast television ecosystem combines streaming services, traditional pay-TV, and free ad-supported platforms, reflecting a sea change in how viewers find and consume video content. The scales are tipping in favor of online sources their first stop when seeking out video content. Over two-thirds (67%) of respondents report they turn to an online source first when they want to watch TV. Only 26% default to a traditional MVPD (Multichannel Video Programming Distributor) set-top box. Hub Entertainment Research’s new report, Decoding the Default, highlights an increasingly fragmented ecosystem where viewers lean more toward online platforms than ever.
From traditional TV to streaming
As cord-cutting and “cord-never” populations continue to grow, the number of viewers who rely solely on traditional pay-TV services is dwindling. According to Hub’s findings, more than twice as many viewers use both traditional pay-TV and streaming platforms rather than just one type. Audiences find that streaming platforms offer more options and flexibility than traditional TV. Deloitte’s Digital Media Trends report echoes this, noting that many consumers find streaming services more aligned with their viewing needs. They prioritize content that matches their schedules rather than set broadcast times.
Viewers’ SVOD stack
Viewers’ video-on-demand (SVOD) “stacks” are getting larger, with many people subscribing to at least three different services. The report shows that the percentage of consumers using three or more SVODs more than doubled since 2020, illustrating the growth of multi-platform use. This expansion is partially due to the massive libraries each SVOD offers; for instance, Netflix, Hulu, and Disney+ have extensive catalogs covering different genres and audience segments.
Yet, while viewers may stack multiple services, only a few platforms become their “default.” Netflix leads this default category, with 26% of respondents choosing it first. This trend toward Netflix as the initial go-to aligns with its status as a pioneering platform with an established reputation for both quantity and quality of content. Hulu and Amazon Prime Video follow while Disney+ and Max (formerly HBO Max) fall slightly behind.
Online streaming is the new “home base”
Hub’s findings underscore that, for most viewers, the default experience of “turning on the TV” starts with online streaming. About one-third of viewers say they now go directly to a built-in smart TV app, showing a 50% increase in usage since 2021.
The appeal of smart TV apps lies in their convenience. They provide immediate access to various streaming platforms without additional hardware. The transition to smart TV apps represents a natural evolution of how viewers experience TV.
Research from the Leichtman Research aligns with this trend, finding that 87% of U.S. households own a device connecting their TV to the internet, from smart TVs to streaming media players. This widespread connectivity facilitates using apps like Netflix, Hulu, and Prime Video, solidifying them as the primary sources of TV content.
SVOD loyalty driven by “favorite shows”
Hub’s report highlights a crucial driver of platform loyalty—exclusive content. When viewers have a specific favorite show exclusive to a particular SVOD, they’re more likely to remain loyal to that platform. This “stickiness” effect is essential in a crowded market where content variety can make or break viewer retention.
On the other hand, traditional MVPDs still hold an edge on live TV, particularly for sports and news. These content categories remain strongholds for pay-TV providers, appealing to a demographic that values real-time events. However, this loyalty is eroding. The report notes that nearly a quarter of MVPD users would consider canceling their service if forced to choose between platforms.
The growth of FAST
FAST services are also becoming a mainstay for many viewers, especially those who prioritize content variety over exclusivity. FAST platforms appeal to cost-conscious consumers who prefer a broad selection of programming without additional monthly costs. Their rise complements subscription streaming by offering a fallback for when paid services are unavailable or too costly.
FAST providers such as Pluto TV and Tubi are gaining traction as they offer a unique blend of on-demand and live content with a more traditional TV-like feel. According to a survey from eMarketer, over half of U.S. adults now use FAST services. For these viewers, the trade-off of ads in exchange for free content is more appealing than paying for an additional SVOD, further underscoring the complexity of the modern TV ecosystem.
Will MVPDs adapt?
The rapid decline of MVPD set-top boxes poses an existential challenge to pay-TV providers, who now face pressure to innovate or risk further market loss. Some MVPDs are pivoting to streaming bundles or hybrid solutions to capture traditional and digital audiences. However, Hub’s report suggests these changes may be too late. As smart TV apps and streaming services become the “default” choice for viewing, MVPDs could be relegated to a niche role unless they compete with streaming platforms on convenience, affordability, and exclusive content.
As more people rely on streaming services and smart TVs, the influence of traditional MVPDs is waning. Netflix’s leading SVOD “default” position reflects its early mover advantage and vast content library. Meanwhile, traditional TV’s staples—live news and sports—feel less essential as viewers increasingly favor on-demand content.
Even when unintentional, media bias can do measurable economic harm to entire nations, new research indicates. The economies of African countries are negatively impacted by media bias to the tune of 4.2 billion U.S. dollars in inflated interest payments annually, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa. The study by Africa No Filter and Africa Practice reveals that by reinforcing negative stereotypes, ignoring positive stories, and misrepresenting African issues through ethnocentrism, media bias could be costing Africa billions per year in high borrowing costs.
In the financial world, negative media coverage heightens perceived risk, which impacts investor sentiment and sovereign bond yields. The research findings indicate that news coverage of African elections focuses disproportionately on negative issues such as violence and election fraud when compared to non-African countries with similar risk profiles. For example, the term “violence” was found to be highly associated with Africa in media headlines – especially in election coverage – even when the content of the article didn’t warrant it. Western media also tends to perpetuate misunderstandings and oversimplifications, such as referring to Africa as a monolith, neglecting to convey the complexities of individual African countries and events.
Global Africa media bias revealed
The study included a comparison of news coverage from seven global media giants: Al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN, Bloomberg, Financial Time, Reuters, and The Economist, all of which are commonly used by foreign investors to keep abreast of international economic and political news. The material covering African countries was compared to that of non-African countries with similar risk profiles.
Negative sentiment in global media reports was found to be more prevalent in articles about African countries during elections when contrasted with comparable Asian countries during elections, even among countries with similar political risk scores.
An astonishing 88% of content about Kenya and 69% about Nigeria demonstrated negative bias, compared with 48% of content on Malasia, which has a similar medium risk profile.
Egypt’s coverage was more than twice as likely to be negative (66%) than Thailand’s (32%), even though both countries are classified as high-risk.
Overall negative bias was still present but reduced when a greater variety of media outlets were added to the equation, highlighting the importance of a diverse media landscape.
Election headlines and buzz words
Media headlines pertaining to African elections were often found to contain negative words, even when the text of the article didn’t align with the negativity of the headline, clearly demonstrating an Africa bias. The word “violence” or “violent” appeared much more often in headlines about Kenyan elections (5.8%), and Nigerian elections (4.4%) than in coverage of elections in Malaysia (.1%), Thailand (0%) and Denmark (0%).
The report found a significant increase in negative bias when covering elections in African countries, compared to elections in non-African countries with similar political risk profiles. For example:
Use of the word “rigged”, or “rigging” appeared in 16% of the articles about Kenyan elections, but in 2% of those about Malaysia and 0% of those about Denmark.
The word “corruption” or “corrupt” was found in 43% of the articles about South African elections and 28% of the articles covering Nigerian elections, compared with only 2% of those about Denmark’s elections and 20% about Thailand’s elections.
News around election periods was analyzed because that content is most likely to be covered by global media outlets.
The financial cost of media bias
Media representation impacts investor sentiment and perceptions of risk, influencing investment decisions and borrower interest rates. Comparing differences in bond yields and media representation between countries with similar political risk profiles reveals the disadvantage that negative media slant confers upon African countries. For example, while both Egypt and Thailand are considered high-risk, Egypt’s bond yields tend to be around 15% compared with Thailand’s 2.5%. The difference translates into significantly higher repayment costs.
Bond yields were disproportionately high even for low-risk African countries compared to their non-African counterparts. For example, South Africa and Denmark both rank as low in political risk, yet South Africa’s average quarterly bond yields range between 8.3% and 8.5% while Denmark’s range from 0.5% to negative 0.2%. Report authors calculate that if the difference in negative media sentiment was adjusted, South African bond yields would decrease by 0.05 %, resulting in big savings on interest repayments for the country.
The media can improve it’s Africa coverage
The New Global Media Index for Africa, produced by Africa No Filter, The Africa Center, and University of Cape Town, investigated a thousand news articles from twenty leading global media outlets. The researchers found that many of shortcomings noted in the report can be mitigated by acting on the following goals:
Broader Representation: Interview more diverse sources, including ordinary African citizens, women, and people from marginalized groups. Current coverage focuses on powerful men and elites.
Geographic Scope: Encompass a wider range of African countries. Many organizations treat the African continent as a monolith, hindering understanding of individual countries and narratives.
Topic Diversity: Provide greater balance by covering the arts, culture, innovation, technology, and positive development.
Depth of coverage: Delve deeper into narratives to better inform audiences about Africa’s complexities.
Critical Self-Examination: Regularly assess news practices and content to foster more accurate and nuanced coverage of African countries.
How to improve election coverage
Due to heightened news bias around elections, Africa No Filter released How to Write About an African Election: A Guide. The guide encourages media organizations to engage in more complex and nuanced coverage around elections by exploring unique angles, including stories of human interest and grassroots mobilization. Key take-aways:
Move away from the old “war room” approach to election coverage, which relies too heavily on official announcements and pre-scheduled events. Instead, notice stories of civic activity, peaceful government transitions, and democratic advancements.
Practice solutions journalism by highlighting positive initiatives, innovations, and successes.
Engage with the youth. Africa has the youngest population in the world. 78% of new voter registrations in South Africa are people aged 16 to 29, according to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC), debunking the idea that young people are disengaged from politics. The guide suggests amplifying the voices of young citizens, as well as engaging them with platforms and formats they prefer.
The takeaway
The good news is that coverage of African countries has improved over the past 20 years, according to The Cost of Media Stereotypes to Africa, trending towards more positive tone and content. However, global media still tend to emphasize articles about poverty, problematic leadership, disease, corruption, and conflicts when reporting on events in African countries.
Considering the new data, it’s critical for media leaders to raise awareness of the tendency toward negative bias when it comes to coverage of African countries. In addition to the impact on bond yields, it is likely that negative press also has an impact on African tourism, development funding, foreign direct investment, and other potential revenue.
Government control of media outlets around the world is on the rise, according to the State Media Monitor 2024 report. The portion of editorially independent media among all state-controlled and public media around the globe dropped from 20% in 2021 to 16% in 2024. According to the data, only 96 of the state and public media outlets included in the study can be defined as editorially autonomous – decreasing from 93 the previous year. The decline is especially significant considering the 2024 analysis included 13 countries added since the prior year’s analysis: Cape Verde, Mali, Sierra Leone, Fiji, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Andorra, Kyrgyzstan, and Maldives.
Over 84% of the 601 state-administered media entities in 107 countries studied by State Media Monitor showed a lack of editorial independence. This represents a 1% increase from the previous year, highlighting the persistence of state control over media.
State Media Monitor defines state-controlled media as media outlets “that are wholly owned and operated by the government, which has a big say in their editorial agenda.” On the opposite end of the scale, Independent public media are defined as public service media whose funding and governing mechanisms are designed to insulate them from government interference. In between those extremes are media outlets operating under various levels of government influence, ranging from independent state funded or managed media to captured public or private media outlets.
The analysis indicates many countries are competing for control of the global news ecosystem. The US, the UK, France, China, Russia, and Turkey, are expanding media empires beyond their own borders, vying for international news dominance. Some countries such as China are funding or otherwise supporting news media outlets beyond their borders, making their overall influence difficult to trace and measure.
Key findings of the State Media Monitor report
State-controlled media grows
About 65% of monitored outlets fall under the state-controlled model, where the government directly influences editorial agendas.
In 2024, 31 outlets in Europe operate under complete state control, an increase from 24 in the prior year.
Independent media declines
The percentage of privately owned media outlets captured by the government increased in 2024 for Europe (19%) and Middle East and North Africa (14%). Public broadcasting in Slovakia, Thailand, South Korea, and several regions in Spain have lost editorial independence.
Political influence
Right-wing political groups in Europe, including those in Austria and the UK, pose ongoing threats to independent media. Meanwhile, media outlets in countries such as Thailand and South Korea operate under significant government censorship.
State-run media in authoritarian regimes such as those in China and Russia are extending operations internationally, significantly influencing global narratives.
Political power and media in 2024
Elections were held in more than 50 nations in 2024, heating up competition for control of the political narrative. State Media Monitor reports that less than a quarter of countries which held elections in 2024 have independent state and public media with editorial freedom, substantially risking the integrity of election processes. Several global conflicts and wars intensified government involvement in media and fueled vying propaganda narratives. Private businesses and political actors also compete for media sway.
Troublingly, public service media is declining around the global. Europe, which typically boasts a plethora of independent outlets, is facing growing pressure from political parties aiming to undermine public service media. European state-controlled media outlets are on the rise, with private media outlets in Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey falling under significant government control. Meanwhile, no purely independent public media outlets were identified in Eurasia, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), or Oceania.
State and public media under state control in 2024
The percentage of media outlets under absolute government control compared to the total number of state and public media outlets overall in the region were reported as follows.
Europe – 26%, an increase from 21% in 2023
Eurasia – 83%, an increase from 80% in 2023
Sub-Sahara Africa – 86%, a decrease from 87% in 2023
Middle East and North Africa – 62%, an increase from 60% in 2023
Asia – 74% – a decrease from 75% in 2023
Latin America and the Caribbean – 77%, the same as 2023
North American held steady at 0%, the same as 2023.
Consequences of state-owned media dominance
There is no getting around the dire consequences posed by government domination of media. The increase in government control indicated in the State Media Monitor report jeopardizes journalistic integrity, the objectivity of news reporting, and diversity in the media landscape. An increase in state-controlled media elevates dangerous propaganda throughout the world.
However, there are a few bright spots. The newly elected government in Poland released publisher Polska Press from state control. The Dominican Republic’s Corporación State de Radio y Televisión (CERTV) has also demonstrated significant improvement in independent editorial coverage over the past year. The Labour Party victory in the UK bodes well for the BBC. These changes suggest that shifts in political leadership can positively impact media independence.
It remains critical that independent media outlets help raise awareness of the need to protect news and information from government control. Media organizations can help advocate for reforms and protections for independent journalism. Safeguarding a diverse information landscape that fosters robust democratic discourse should be a priority for news organizations and a concerned public.
TikTok is becoming an increasingly important platform for content creators, brands and media companies of all kinds. That’s especially true for those seeking to connect with younger audiences. Today, young people take a distinctly different news journey than older generations in which social media and visually-led content plays a leading role. Specifically, about 40% of those under age 30 in the USA regularly get news from TikTok. That’s up from around 10% in 2020, highlighting how quickly this demographic is adopting the platform as part of their news diet/habits.
TikTok – once viewed as a passive entertainment platform – is evolving into an algorithmically driven engagement powerhouse for content of all kinds. Estimates of its audience size vary, spanning from a massive 1.5 billion to close to two billion users worldwide. Regardless of this variance, there’s no denying that the network has a huge reach, and that it has grown astronomically since launching globally in 2018. It’s now the sixth-largest social network in the world, and its users worldwide spend 34 hours a month on it. That’s way ahead of its rivals in terms of time spent.
“Roughly 170 million Americans use TikTok,” The New York Times noted earlier this year. “That’s half the population of the United States.” Charting 19 ways the platform has influenced American life, the Gray Lady observes that “Even if you’ve never opened the app, you’ve lived in a culture that exists downstream of what happens there.”
With that in mind, here are four things media companies need to know about TikTok, and how to harness it to reach new audiences effectively and build brand awareness, while at the same time making their content more accessible and relatable to younger consumers.
1. TikTok is a highly participatory social network
There’s a widely held misconception that TikTok is a “lean-back,” passive platform. However, new research from Weber Shandwick, a global communications and consulting firm, shows that TikTok consumption is more engaged and intentional than you might realize.
“Comments are king,” the report states, observing how “the comments section is where people go to learn more, fact-check claims, make jokes and attempt to make sense of what they have seen.”
Talking to Digital Content Next, Dr. Claire Wardle, a Cornell Professor who worked on this research, shared in more detail how users actively engage with TikTok content through the comments. This includes visiting the comments to determine if they agree, or not, with certain stories, the entertainment value they offer, as well as using insights from their peers to determine the veracity of a video. Many consumers see these behaviors as an intrinsic part of their experience on the platform.
For media companies, this may mean that engagement on TikTok should go beyond just creating content. It might require active involvement in the comment sections, given that this is where audiences spend a great deal of time and energy.
Determining the best way to do that, however, isn’t easy. “If I’m a publisher, what am I doing in the comments? What’s my role?” Wardle asks.
One potential solution stems from an idea proposed by Sophia Smith Galer. The freelance journalist and former BBC and Vice staffer has argued that newsrooms should encourage and support “individual journalist creators” on TikTok. It may be easier for people in that guise, to respond to comments on the platform, instead of through an anonymous brand account.
Nevertheless, despite the importance of TikTok’s comments section, Weber-Shandwick’s report cautions that this arena can be a home to trolls and other bad actors. Subsequently, “a detailed protocol for engagement in the comments of your own TikTok videos or videos posted by others is a must,” they advise.
2. Authenticity is key to audience-media connections on TikTok
Authentic was Merriam-Webster’s Word of the Year in 2023. “Authentic (their italics) is what brands, social media influencers, and celebrities aspire to be,” the company said.
On TikTok, as with many other visually led social networks, perceptions of authenticity are fundamental to audience engagement. I say “perceptions” because, as Social Sprout points out, seemingly lo-fi content is often actually highly produced.
Nevertheless, at its heart, this is content that intentionally looks a little less polished. In turn, this rawness can also make it more relatable and accessible. Furthermore, this style of content may be seen as more trustworthy and authentic with younger audiences than traditional media, the latest Digital News Report found.
However, the style of content that often does well on TikTok may fly in the face of traditional media production values, and that can sometimes be difficult to reconcile.
That’s amplified by an anti-establishment feel that the platform has, a notion “that came through very strongly in the research,” Wardle says.
As a result, TikTok “is not an obvious place for The Wall Street Journal or CNN to turn up,” Wardle reflects. That’s partly based on the style of content on the network, user preferences – which lean towards independent creators – and a concern that media outlets just look like they’re trying too hard to fit in.
Nevertheless, it’s no surprise that the most successful brands on TikTok lean into authenticity. Morning Brew’s account, in my opinion, is a great example to learn from. It’s funny, irreverent and looks like the creators shot it in their home (perhaps they did). As a result, it fits seamlessly with the style and tone of other content in my feed, while also managing to make some valid points (on occasion).
For publishers, key ways to curate an authentic aesthetic include using more casual delivery styles, behind-the-scenes content, and collaborating with creators who understand TikTok’s culture. Adapting, or partnering, in this way matters if you want to be relevant on the platform.
3. Navigating algorithms when familiarity breeds contentment
Reflecting on how Americans use TikTok, the Pew Research Center recently highlighted the value of its recommendation technology, and in particular its “For You” page. For users, this is a highly curatable space, one that enables you to teach TikTok what you want to watch. As Buffer explains, that is part of the app’s secret sauce. “The blend of familiar and new content is tailored meticulously to user preferences, making the social network addictive and fresh,” they explain.
As a result, it’s perhaps not surprising that “users generally like the content the algorithm serves them,” Pew’s research found. Their data revealed that “40% of users say this content is either extremely or very interesting to them.” In contrast, just 14% of their survey respondents said this wasn’t relevant or interesting to them.
For brands and content creators, this makes it all the more important that users know you’re on the platform. If they’re not following you, it can be hard to find and discover you on TikTok.
The success of this algorithm is a key factor behind users devoting so much time on the app. eMarketer anticipates that Gen Z, adults aged 18-24, spend an average of 77 minutes per day on the platform.
There are long-standing concerns, however, that algorithms can create echo chambers. This could reduce the perspectives that audiences are exposed to and lay the foundations for misinformation.
TikTok users, it seems, actively embrace – and are highly cognizant of – these concerns. Users acknowledged that “I know I’m not seeing anything from the other side, but I really love that,” Wardle said. “I love that I never come across people who are different to me.”
Users are aware that they are in echo chambers, but rather than trying to break out of them, they revel in the familiarity of their feeds. And they also feel confident that if they need to step outside of their comfort zone, then they know how to do so.
Responding to this is challenging, especially for news outlets. But, rather than trying to fight the echo chamber, publishers may just want to lean into it. This may mean producing more non-news content, as well as niche or specialized content that resonates with specific audiences, alongside evergreen content, and material beyond the daily news cycle.
4. News media and social issues on TikTok
That said, despite these cultural and algorithmic challenges, news does still have a place on the platform. Despite its reputation for entertainment, TikTok has become an important arena for consuming news and discussing social issues.
In fact, many users report encountering social and political content regularly, even though TikTok is not traditionally seen as a news platform. The latest Digital News Report found that nearly a quarter (23%) of 18–24s in the markets they surveyed, use the platform for news, as did 13% of all digital news consumers.
“These averages hide rapid growth in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia,” the authors note, with “more than a third now use the network for news every week in Thailand (39%) and Kenya (36%).” Figures are lower in countries like the United States (9%) and the UK (4%).
Perhaps more importantly, according to Weber Shandwick, although users don’t necessarily seek out news on the platform, they do stumble upon it through trending content.
Users often perceive that they see these stories first on TikTok, Wardle told us, with the mainstream media playing catch up. “Our survey results validated this,” Weber Shandwick’s research says, “77% of users said TikTok is where they first learn about news on political or social subjects at least some of the time.”
However, much of this news discovery does not come from traditional news brands. Instead, individual creators and commentators drive many of these conversations.
This once again reinforces the need for news organizations to partner with influencers and creators who have already mastered the platform’s style and audience. Encouraging individual journalists to build their own presence on TikTok may also help bridge the gap between traditional reporting and this new media landscape. Collectively, collaboration and empowering journalists to engage with the platform directly could be pivotal for ensuring many publisher’s stories reach and resonate with younger, highly engaged audiences.
So, is TikTok right for your media brand?
The size of TikTok’s audience suggests that the platform is too big to ignore. However, the style of content and community culture that flourishes on it can be difficult to tap into. As a result, publishers need to carefully consider if it is a good fit for them.
Media companies that can adapt to this environment will find opportunities for deeper connections with audiences. Meanwhile, those who simply see TikTok as just another outlet for distributing their content, often doing so in the same format as elsewhere, may struggle to make an impact.
Worse still, efforts to blend in risk being seen as trying too hard. “How do you show up in a way that doesn’t look like a dad dancing at the wedding?” Wardle asks.
Part 2! Better Explainer on Kamalas plan to expand #medicare to include #homehealth options vs Trump plan to privatize medicare and create a tax shelter? Out of it? Idk.. #kamalaharrispolicies
Audiences, Wardle says, are “kind of resisting” traditional players, preferring instead to get their content from native providers like Under The Desk News. A consistent favorite with my students, Kelsey Russell is a Media Literacy Influencer and Co-Host of First Stop News. Russell, the self-professed ‘Print Princess’ reads different newspapers and magazines to her audience, and has garnered nearly 100,000 TikTok followers in the process.
The key takeaway for publishers wanting to flourish on TikTok is to balance being relatable and informal, with being useful and entertaining. They need to do so in a way that doesn’t force humor or tap into trends in a way that feels inauthentic and “cringe.”
That’s potentially a tall order, and these efforts may not drive traffic to your site or other platforms in the way that most publishers have historically used social media.
Nevertheless, if media companies can foster authentic connections with audiences, this can help to build brand loyalty and awareness, potentially unlocking long-term benefits that go beyond simple click-through metrics.
As Enrique Anarte, a journalist at Context previously told IJNet, “You’re not on TikTok to go viral; you’re really on TikTok to reach the audience you wanted to reach.” “It’s better to get a video with lower views, but high positive engagement from the people you want to reach,” they added.
For many younger audiences, TikTok may be the first time they encounter your brand, creating a connection that may well pay even further dividends down the line. It won’t be for everyone, but if you’re prepared to play the long game, mix up your video style to fit in, and find the right people to collaborate with, then TikTok might well become a key plank in your social media strategy in 2024 and beyond.
