In terms of public policy debates, Artificial Intelligence continues to be the belle of the ball with nearly every major government courting the industry to locate their investments and jobs within their jurisdictions. Europe, China, Korea, and the U.S. (among others) have laid out competing tax and government spending plans to entice and encourage AI companies. Against this backdrop of AI frenzy, President Donald Trump, via the Office of Science Technology and Policy, has solicited input on the formation of an “AI Action Plan” in order to “define the priority policy actions needed to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance.”
Unsurprisingly and unabashedly, tech companies advocate that the U.S. government allow their content-generating AI models to train on copyrighted material without consent or compensation. However, as DCN noted in our comments regarding the action plan, a key component to achieving the stated goal of enhancing America’s AI dominance – and the broader success of American businesses – is the robust protection and enforcement of U.S. intellectual property law including the Copyright Act.
Copyright protection makes legal, and financial, sense
The longstanding legal rights for copyright holders are derived from the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 8, clause 8), which affords them the opportunity to monetize the results of their hard work and investment in a variety of ways and incentivizes them to reinvest in the creation of additional content and new innovative delivery mechanisms to potential consumers. As a result of these longstanding rights, American content creators, including news organizations and other publishers, are able to contribute significantly to U.S. economic growth, including through employment, exports and important trade surplus, and digital services and goods.
According to a recent study, copyright-based industries accounted for 12.31% of the U.S. economy and 63.13% of the U.S. digital economy. From 2020 to 2023, these industries outpaced U.S. economic growth almost threefold. In the digital sector alone, copyright-based industries employ 56.6% of all employees in the digital sector. The annual compensation paid to core copyright workers is approximately 50% higher than the average U.S. annual wage. As for the global impact, the sales of select U.S. copyrighted products in overseas markets amounted to $272.6 billion, which exceeded the sales of other IP industries including pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and aerospace.
Copyright, competition and a fair market
Unfortunately, the manner in which many AI developers have exploited original content without consent or compensation – to build and operationalize their commercial products – has unjustifiably violated the rights of copyright holders. It has upended the existing balance which has historically sustained and promoted innovation.
AI developers use copyright protected content not only to “teach” their models to predict and mimic language skills, but also as a means to create compelling outputs which have the compounding harm of substituting for the original works on which the models were trained. This activity unfairly competes with those who invested in the creation of the original material and undermines their ability to seek a fair economic return. In fact, U.S. Senior District Judge Beryl Howell noted earlier this week in a copyright case attempting to argue fair use that the publisher’s content is “so valuable they put a copyright on it.” Exactly.
By “reaping that which they do not sow” AI companies cause harm to creators, publishers and the ecosystem as a whole. It is important that this form of destructive misappropriation be deterred, whether by copyright law or other appropriate means. In the U.S, there are 39 related lawsuits and counting. The outcome of these suits will provide much-needed clarity regarding the application of existing copyright law, including the fact-specific defense of fair use, to the infringement of the rights of copyright holders to develop generative AI technology.
However, one U.S. District Court recently confirmed that licensing is required for the use of copyrighted content to train an AI system. In Thomson Reuters Enter. Ctr. GmBH v. Ross Intel. Inc., the court, applying clear and recent precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the defendant’s unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s works to train the defendant’s AI system was direct infringement and did not constitute fair use. The Court reaffirmed that the impact of the use on existing and potential markets is the single most important element of a fair use analysis, and that there was clearly a potential market to use the materials at issue in the case to train AI.
Innovation flourishes within the copyright framework
Lest the VC crowd be dismayed, a licensing framework is emerging as many deals have been struck by publishers, record labels, motion picture industries, and others. OpenAI, Google, and Perplexity have all made efforts to pay for the right to use protected content to power their models and tools. This is a clear acknowledgment that this model is not only necessary, but eminently feasible.
While publishers’ rights are coming into clearer focus in the U.S., AI companies are beginning to feel a shared pain as evidenced recently by DeepSeek’s R1 model. OpenAI accused the company of IP theft, claiming that DeepSeek may have used OpenAI’s IP and violated its terms of service to develop its AI model.
“We know PRC (China) based companies – and others – are constantly trying to distill the models of leading US AI companies,” OpenAI said in a statement to Bloomberg. “As the leading builder of AI, we engage in countermeasures to protect our IP, including a careful process for which frontier capabilities to include in released models, and believe as we go forward that it is critically important that we are working closely with the US government to best protect the most capable models from efforts by adversaries and competitors to take US technology.”
A rising tide can lift all boats. Only maintaining existing copyright protections will lead to a robust, free market where creators are incentivized to make high quality works and AI companies are incentivized to license them. Importantly, in this robust market, AI companies would continue to have access to quality content which is critical for training and outputs. The American values of IP protection have been a cornerstone in our country’s innovative spirit and competitive edge over foreign adversaries. Protecting IP is a matter of preserving the core principles that distinguish American businesses in the global market. For the history of the U.S., copyright and innovation have gone hand in hand and there is no reason to deviate from that successful combination as we build the next chapter.
On February 16, Google relaxed its restrictions on fingerprinting for ad targeting and user tracking across a wide range of devices. Their December 2024 announcement reignited debates about privacy, security and the role of passive device identification in digital advertising. The announcement was certainly a radical reversal from 2019, when Google said it would block fingerprinting for its lack of transparency. But with this recent change of heart, Google now refers to fingerprinting as a technology designed to make it easier for advertisers to reach audiences across the open Internet and to harness the hyper-growth of connected TV (CTV) programmatic advertising.
Google justifies its about face because, they suggest, advances in privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) make it possible to protect audience data—including IP addresses and device fingerprints—in ways that are now more sophisticated than they were in the past.
Maybe, but there’s a catch
Open Internet digital advertising—particularly programmatic advertising—is all about real-time addressability, measurement and performance optimization. Facing signal loss from fewer cookies and mobile device IDs, our industry has cleverly created a handful of new identity systems that utilize hashed emails (HEMs) and device fingerprints. While each of these technologies delivers a unique value to advertisers and publishers, they all come with certain downside commercial risks beyond their challenges to online privacy. Among the group, fingerprints tend to elicit a more negative reaction from privacy professionals. Frankly, it’s entirely reasonable to be concerned.
That’s because fingerprints are passive and permanent. They’re passive because fingerprinting technologies can uniquely identify a browser or mobile device without anyone’s active acknowledgement or consent. They’re permanent because fingerprints can’t be deleted unless you change your browser or device.
An express lane to data commoditization
When publishers permit their audiences to be fingerprinted, that unique—and permanent—identity data immediately falls into the hands of a third party. Each fingerprint has the potential to siphon away valuable audience data, eroding the very asset publishers rely on for revenue. As they say, “you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.” The audience data leakage risk for publishers is acute, and the impact is inventory value commoditization. Simply stated, when advertisers can find your uniquely identifiable audience more cheaply, they will.
Despite these data leakage risks, it’s important we don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.Device fingerprints serve an important commercial purpose because the lion’s share of the open Internet remains unauthenticated. Thus, absent a third-party browser cookie or mobile device ID, deterministic addressability and measurement are simply impossible.
To put this commercial challenge into perspective, Safari and Firefox block third-party cookies, leaving 35% of the U.S. web unmeasurable. Apple holds 58% of the U.S. mobile market and more than half of users have entirely opted out of third-party in-app tracking with the remainder only selectively opting in.
Fingerprinting can be an effective way to mitigate the commercial downside of these open Internet statistics. Yet there’s clearly a tension that requires advertisers and publishers to balance the business benefit fingerprints create for addressability and measurement. They must also factor in the importance of privacy—both in the face of regulation and in the context of consumer trust—as well as the underlying economic value of each party’s customer data and intelligence.
Choose your next PET carefully
If the Google Chrome team makes good on its promise of a “global cookie prompt,” then it’s very clear why the Google adtech team is suddenly much less opposed to device fingerprinting. When Chrome third-party cookies disappear, extended IDs—and especially fingerprints—will become the open Internet’s most scalable options for addressability, measurement, insights and optimization.
Which is why now is when advertisers and publishers need to be investing in solutions that balance data protection with data accessibility at the speed, scale and low-cost parameters required for open Internet programmatic advertising. For brands, customer intelligence is a key competitive advantage. And for publishers—so many of whom have experienced first-hand what a decade-and-a-half of audience data leakage has done to the value of their inventory—the negative economics of loose data sharing practices are abundantly clear. For both sides of the buy-sell equation, consumer data is the key to performance.
As the industry grapples with the evolving landscape of identity and privacy, the debate over fingerprinting underscores a broader truth: no identifier—whether fingerprint-based, email-derived, or otherwise—is without risk. The key lies not in avoiding identifiers altogether but in implementing strong, enforceable protections that preserve consumer trust while enabling addressability, measurement and performance across the digital ad ecosystem.
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.
Ethical and legal ramifications of AI in journalism
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.
Gen Z gets a bad rap from the news industry. Whether it’s news avoidance, the refusal to pay, or the rise in following news influencers rather than media organizations, myriad issues make it challenging for publishers to build relationships with younger audiences. Yet young audiences will pay for products that add value to their lives.
The belief that younger audiences will engage – and even pay – for media products drove the foundation of Youthquake. Danuta Breguła, MD for Paid Products at Ringier Axel Springer Polska and Liesbeth Nizet, Head of Future Audiences Monetization at Mediahuis nv are the people behind the Substack publication that focuses on how publishers can connect with young people.
Crucially, it’s no longer the case that young people will simply “grow into” paying for news as they get older and have more disposable income. Nizet explained that this is a change that she’s seen over the 15 years she’s worked in journalism. “News is not a destination any more,” she observed. “[Young people] consume news between all the other cool things. That’s why platforms are really interesting for them, because they give you news, but also all the other stuff.”
Although the push to go directly to a news app or site may be lower, Nizet believes that younger audiences can be persuaded to pay for news. That belief drives her work every day at Mediahuis.
“You see that young people want to pay for a new skin in Fortnite, or something on Roblox, or a nice feature on Airbnb for example, because it inspires them, or triggers them,” she explained. “Why aren’t we able to find what triggers them [to pay] for something as important as independent journalism?”
Thinking beyond the article
One issue Nizet highlighted is that many news organizations still think in text and image. Even video on news sites is usually landscape with a clumsy play experience. “It’s not the experience that they have on other platforms, and there is really some space for us,” she emphasized.
Short-form video — in portrait for mobile viewing – is the preferred consumption format for 61% of Gen Z and young millennial consumers surveyed by the Reuters Institute. Short-form text was the next most popular (40%), with long-form text ranking third in young audiences’ preferences (32%).
One example is looking at explainer videos which perform well for creators and influencers. News brands are ideally placed to do well from these, but Nizet said that this requires journalists showing their faces. To engage young news audiences, “we need to show our vulnerability,” she outlined. “We need to show how much effort it is to create a really good article, that it’s not just some piece of content like an influencer unboxing something.”
Nizet pointed to Danish news publisher Zetland as an example of offering alternative formats. Zetland identified that many of its readers wanted to get an update on their commute, and didn’t necessarily want to be looking into their screens. They invested in building an audio app with journalists reading out their stories. Now, 80% of their audience consume the news that way, and 45% of their subscribers are in their 20s and 30s.
Building trust off-platform
As well as innovating around publishers’ own platform experiences, there is value in investing in a presence wherever younger people are, in order to build those relationships. French daily newsbrand Le Monde told Press Gazette that investing in content for primarily Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube had helped initiate relationships with new audiences, who they then saw become paying subscribers after two or three years.
Nizet noted that although the end goal of being visible on social media should be to tease audiences back to publishers’ own work, there is a bigger role at play. “We can show them [on social] what our journalism looks like, how trustworthy it is, how we show different perspectives, and how we make content that is relatable to their world,” she said. “That is what will make them pay for it.”
“They don’t want to pay for some instance that is preaching to them how they need to live their lives. That is often what we still have in traditional media: we are going to tell you how the world is, and how you should think. It worked for other generations, but it doesn’t work for [young people].”
Although younger audiences are more likely to turn to social media for news, they are also very distrustful of the information they find on it. A Gen Z Report from Oliver Wyman Forum & TNM found that Gen Z are almost twice as likely to fact-check news, but also that they trust people like them 2x as much as “mainstream” news outlets.
Another opportunity social platforms present publishers is the ability to engage and interact with young news audiences. This isn’t a new phenomenon, of course. Nizet noted that older generations also comment and read what others are saying with as much interest as the original content.
“We are not just senders, but we act like senders,” Nizet explained. “We see platforms as traffic drivers. But a platform can do so much more than just traffic building. It’s about building trust and engagement, and letting people get to know your journalism.”
Crucially, this requires a re-adjustment of who publishers assess as their competitors. “We’re not competing against [traditional] media any more,” Nizet pointed out. “We are competing against cat movies, and influencer drama… that is the real competition.”
There is a balance to be struck between investing in building audiences on platforms publishers have little control over, and showcasing work to build trust. Nizet draws a clear distinction in her work at Mediahuis. Off-platform is the hook, where the question should be how journalism can be showcased and trust can be build. On-platform is about the reward, the value, the exclusivity and the community.
Looking outside publishing for inspiration
However successful individual publishers might be at attracting younger audiences, Nizet believes that real change will come from looking outside the industry at what works in other areas. This is the focus of her and Breguła’s Youthquake newsletter, and a report on How publishers can grow with today’s youth.
“We really want to go beyond the obvious things. So for example how Taylor Swift or Red Bull can help us understand and monetize younger people,” Nizet said. “There’s also a link between content creators, influencers and news brands…which could offer you a totally different perspective as a journalist than what you are used to, and it can be so enriching.”
It’s a sentiment that Zetland CEO Tav Klitgaard echoed to The Publisher Podcast this week. “The product has to be much better,” he said, referring to news sites and apps. “You have to compete with Spotify and Instagram. You shouldn’t compete with a legacy print paper, and it seems like a lot of people in the media industry are still believing that’s [who] you need to compete with, which is just totally wrong. You need to compete with YouTube.”
A shift in thinking to engage young news audiences
Nizet is optimistic that publishers can build a relationship with younger audiences, even a paying one. She pointed out that there will always be a need for news, and that there is a lot of opportunity for those who can think outside the box.
Crucially, the answer to these challenges won’t come from the way publishers are used to doing things right now. “We need to shift how we think,” Nizet emphasized. “We don’t control the internet… but we can see how we can adapt to it in formats that [young people] like, and stories that they like and feel relatable.
“At some point, they will pay for it. I don’t mean when they are 30 or 35, I mean at the moment that they are feeling the value that we can offer them.”
Building a relationship where that value becomes evident to Gen Z is not a quick task. Strategies put in place now will take years to pay off, as with the example of Le Monde on social media. But it is a vital job that news publishers need to actively be planning for, if they want young audiences to pay for news in the future.
2025 has already proven to be a defining year for social media, and we’re only a few months in! From Meta’s controversial decision to remove independent fact-checkers to TikTok’s on/off ban in the U.S. and Australia’s move to restrict social media use for under-16s, the social landscape is undergoing an intense period of change. These shifts are forcing media companies to rethink their distribution strategies and explore reliable, transparent alternatives for news delivery that prioritize accuracy and audience trust.
Live blogs are emerging as one such alternative for transparent journalism, offering fact-checked, real-time updates in an engaging format. Used by leading publishers like Der Spiegel in Germany and The Guardian in the UK, live blogs combine bite-size news, micro-videos, and interactive elements, giving journalists a powerful tool to engage their audiences while maintaining credibility.
A sustainable path for journalism
Half of U.S. adults get news from social media platforms like Facebook, X and TikTok, unfortunately that has only contributed to their declining trust in traditional media outlets. And the proliferation of fake news on social media demands new channels that provide information just as quickly and personally—while ensuring factual accuracy.
Live blogs strike a crucial balance between speed and accuracy, ensuring that audiences receive up-to-the-minute information without the risks associated with unchecked social media posts. They empower journalists to report transparently, involve their audience in the storytelling process, and foster genuine connections. As leading German news provider, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, commented:
“Live blogs enable news to be shared with audiences while other in-depth reports, reportage, or commentaries on the event are prepared. In a sense, they show storytelling in the making.”
Direct interaction through comment blocks and Q&As, for example, allow journalists to go beyond basic updates to establish and meet user needs in an audience-first approach that fosters deeper connections. Videos showcasing their work make news organizations more relatable and trustworthy, while the ability to build transparency into reporting processes by clarifying sources, linking directly to primary documents, and issuing real-time corrections, stand live blogs apart from the fast-moving, unregulated world of social media.
Personality goes a long way
We know that the social and personal element of influencers is a major draw for audiences. With their less formal structure, live blogs allow journalists to bring a bit of their own personality into their reporting, whether through their tone, choice of details, or even small touches like author photos and location tags: “On the ground in D.C.” or “Live from the Oscars red carpet”.
A more casual style isn’t suitable for every story, but Der Spiegel’s recent Grammys live blog suggests there is room for opinion in live coverage. The witty back-and-forth between the reporters added depth and personality, making it feel more like a conversation than information feed, and turning a passive read into a shared event experience. As live blogs continue to evolve, they offer a powerful way for journalists to engage their audience on a more personal level while maintaining journalistic integrity.
By prioritizing transparency, authenticity, and connection, news organizations can rebuild audience trust and position themselves as authoritative sources in a crowded media landscape. This commitment to openness builds credibility, combats misinformation, and strengthens the relationship between journalists and the public—fostering deeper engagement and loyalty. And in 2025, that will be more crucial than ever.
Engaging younger audiences with interactive micro-content
Short-form video content has become a dominant format in social media, with platforms like TikTok popularizing the trend. However, while social media may excel at capturing attention, it often lacks editorial oversight. Live blogs, on the other hand, allow media organizations to blend micro-content—such as short videos, Q&As, and polls—with verified news updates that audiences can trust. This interactive approach keeps younger audiences engaged while ensuring that the information they consume is accurate and relevant.
Stuff often uses live blogs to great effect, covering events such as The Met Fashion Gala to keep readers up to date with the outfits on show and drama as it unfolds. By incorporating expert written comment and video snippets, readers were brought closer to the event. Audience surveys enabled reporters to gain real-time feedback from readers, who in turn could actively participate in the coverage they consumed, creating a compelling, participatory experience.
Mobile-first and second-screen experiences
The way people consume news has shifted dramatically. Television audiences continue to decline, while mobile devices have become the primary gateway to news and entertainment. Live blogs cater to this shift by offering mobile-first, responsive designs that provide seamless access across devices.
Additionally, live blogs enhance the “second-screen experience” by integrating real-time stats, analysis, and background reports. Whether covering a sports match, a political debate, or a major breaking news event, live blogs give audiences a richer, more immersive experience than passive social media scrolling.
One of the world’s longest-running and most-watched non-sporting events, The Eurovision Song Contest, is a great example of this in action. From the performances on stage to the backstage dramas, national titles such as The Irish Independent used their live blog to provide followers with a second screen to participate in the antics of this diverse and elaborate spectacle.
Strengthening community ties
In the race for digital engagement, national and global media outlets often overlook the power of local reporting. However, hyperlocal content is experiencing a resurgence as audiences seek news that directly impacts their communities. And people often turn to social media groups for interaction at a neighborhood level.
Live blogs offer an ideal alternative for this type of coverage, enabling media companies to provide real-time updates on local events, elections, and sports teams. In the summer of 2024, heavy rain caused severe flooding across Germany and other parts of Europe. Reporters from a range of national and regional titles covered the situation via live blogs for days on end, often late into the night, to keep local readers informed on their situation in their area. Readers spent an average of 5 minutes on the live blogs to keep abreast of updates and prepare for the floods.
By focusing on hyperlocal reporting, publishers can build stronger community ties, enhance audience loyalty, and support long-term engagement through subscription models.
Engagement with responsibility
The social media era has prioritized virality over veracity, often at the expense of journalistic integrity. As regulatory pressures increase and audience expectations shift, media organizations must embrace formats that prioritize both engagement and responsibility in order to win back audience share with viable alternatives.
Live blogs present a sustainable solution. By offering real-time, fact-checked news in an interactive format, they provide a compelling alternative to social media’s often chaotic and unreliable ecosystem. Publishers that invest in live-blogging technology will not only enhance audience trust but also future-proof their reporting strategies in an increasingly uncertain digital landscape.
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.
Content licensing has long been an important revenue stream for digital media companies. For decades, it allowed publishers to monetize their content by granting rights for others to republish or repurpose their material, evolving from licensing to aggregators, databases, social platforms, to streaming video services. Now, content licensing faces another evolution: artificial intelligence (AI).
Digital media publishers are finding themselves in a unique position in that they possess decades worth of quality content AI companies crave. “Over the next few years, content creators and AI companies will deepen their relationships,” predicts Yulia Petrossian Boyle, founder and principal of YPB Global LLC and FIPP chair. “However, as AI players try to secure more original content, those relationships will need to transition from one-off deals to well-structured, ethical partnerships with strict IP protection and meaningful ongoing revenue for publishers.”
TIME’s COO Mark Howard believes that publishers currently have three ways they can approach the AI dilemma: “You can do nothing. That’s just not something we would consider, to sit on the sidelines and just let everybody else figure it out. The other two options are to litigate and negotiate. Litigation is a very, very large commitment… So, that leaves negotiation.”
For some media companies, AI licensing agreements offer an alluring mix of copyright protection and monetization opportunities as DCN contributor Damian Radcliffe points out. And, as they negotiate these deals, publishers are discovering they must balance the potential for monetization with the need to protect intellectual property rights, navigate complex legal challenges, and ensure responsible AI usage.
Fair value in AI content licensing
According to a recent INMA report, executives considering licensing deals need to understand the value of their content in an AI-driven market. Then they have to negotiate attribution and compensation models that align with business goals. The report recommends collaborating with industry peers to create standardized agreements. It emphasizes the importance of advocating for responsible AI practices, including transparency in data usage.
Image credit: Ezra Eeman, Strategy & Innovation Director – NPO
The report also highlights emerging licensing models, which include direct licensing, value-in-kind partnerships, training fees, bundled partnerships, and per-use compensation. Boyle notes promising approaches, like “data-as-currency” deals, where AI companies offer analytics in exchange for access to their platforms and services (in some cases in addition to some smaller flat fees).
“Revenue-sharing is on the rise, where publishers earn a portion of subscription revenue or performance-based compensation (based on lead-gen, or engagement analytics),” she says. “For example, Perplexity AI’s Publishing Program launched in July 2024 offers revenue share based on the number of a publisher’s web pages cited in AI-generated responses to user queries. Those in the program earn a variable percentage of ad revenue generated per cited page.”
Boyle says that, while compensation models are improving, she worries that AI companies do not adequately compensate for content that has higher production costs, such as investigative journalism. She points to pushback from publishers like Forbes, who rejected the Perplexity proposal.
Negotiating with AI companies on behalf of her consultancy, Boyle has observed that offers by some AI companies for training datasets are insufficient. “Since agreements are not indefinite, it is unclear to me how publishers will be compensated in future when AI companies may no longer need training data for their data sets.”
In her opinion, current compensation models between major AI companies and publishers do not adequately reflect the significant investments that publishers make in creating original content. She believes compared to the substantial amounts AI companies invest in technology, such as chips, their expenditure on content seems disproportionately low. This disparity highlights a need for a more balanced financial recognition of the value that original content creators bring to these partnerships, she says.
However, striking these deals isn’t simple. Howard notes that each one is different, each has different monetization models and philosophies on revenue sharing.
“Some of them are flat fee for training, some of them are variable based on user adoption of their own products, and some of them are based on future ad models that haven’t even launched yet,” Howard says. “Many of them have some form of value-in-kind around technology or technology resources, which makes me very excited. I think that that may end up being where most of the value is derived in the long term.”
A few of TIME’s AI partnerships are infrastructure-based, like Fox Verify, which uses their blockchain-based technology to verify all of the content TIME publishes in the CMS. This provides them with a ledger of all of their intellectual property going forward. After that, according to Howard, they worked with Tollbit and Scalepost to track and monitor all of the AI bots on TIME’s site any given day and see what they’re doing.
Access to technology is a key benefit of TIME’s AI partnerships for Howard. “We’re partners of theirs. I have direct access to their CTO and their senior leadership team. We get to hear what… they’re thinking about the market, that’s a really valuable conversation for us to have.”
“We brought money in as a result of these deals,” he says. “I’m happy about what we brought in. Some of it is fixed, a lot of it is variable and a lot of it is access to product resources and technology.”
Factiva puts trust first in its AI licensing
Dow Jones launched Factiva Smart Summary in November, a groundbreaking feature in its business intelligence platform engineered with Google’s Gemini models on Google Cloud. Smart Summary leverages generative AI technology to create concise summaries for Factiva users that are fully transparent and traceable, utilizing licensed content from each of their publishing partners.
To do so, Factiva approached every one of its nearly 4,000 sources in 160 countries with licensing agreements. “We did this because we are a publisher first and arbiter for publishers… We won’t ask any of our publishing partners to do anything that we’re not prepared to do ourselves,” explains Traci Mabrey, general manager of Factiva. “As such, we have elected and will continue to elect, to reach out to publishing entities and request additional licensing permissions and actual rights for generative AI use.” Today, its marketplace includes nearly 5,000 partners.
Dow Jones emphasizes the importance of respecting and compensating intellectual property and content creation. Mabrey outlines four key criteria guiding their AI partnerships: trust, transparency, segmentation, and compliance.
“We believe that trust is imperative. We believe there needs to be transparency in terms of content being created, used, surfaced and attributed,” Mabrey says. “There also needs to be relative segmentation in terms of use cases across different solutions. And there needs to be compliance and governance to adherence to the first three, of trust, transparency and segmentation.”
Deal points when licensing content for AI training
There’s no one-size-fits-all model for licensing deals, and the best approach depends on a publisher’s specific goals, content, and resources. Some determine how easily an LLM can integrate into their existing systems and CMS. Some choose LLMs based on those they already deal with.
But, data privacy and security are central concerns in these agreements. Vadim Supitskiy, chief digital and information officer at Forbes, told Digiday that ensuring interactions with AI products remain safe and protected is a key priority.
Mabrey echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that privacy and security are integral components to negotiations with AI partners. “As we’re looking at responsible delivery of AI, responsible usage of content and privacy and security in terms of technical infrastructure, that is our leading indicator.”
Publishers must have review rights over AI-generated outputs, ability to see proof of usage logs, and be able to enforce brand guidelines, according to Boyle. “All those things have to be clearly defined in the licensing agreements. Tracking metrics of engagement, attribution, and demographic insights is also important for publishers to receive, to be able to see how valuable their licensed content is,” she says.
Essential safeguards in the agreements themselves ought to include strong, sophisticated clauses to protect publishers’ IP, says Boyle, “including mechanisms to prevent unauthorized reproduction, clear ownership definitions, restrictions on data usage, well defined termination provisions, attribution and fair compensation.”
Howard emphasizes that no two content licensing deals with AI companies are the same, and each comes with significant legal and technical hurdles. “First, there’s the legal aspect and every company needs to come up with their own legal terms and what is acceptable to them and what is not. What do they have the rights to? What do they not have the rights to?” he says.
“Once you’ve determined all of that, you need a technology solution to be able to deliver the content to them… All of the delivery mechanisms are quite different and require some form of customization.”
These complexities point to why AI companies have slowed the pace of new licensing agreements after an initial rush. Negotiating unique terms and building tailored tech solutions for each partner has proven difficult to scale, Howard notes.
Where AI licensing is headed
AI is reshaping how content is distributed, discovered, and monetized. For media companies, the choice is clear: engage in legal battles or proactively negotiate terms that ensure fair compensation. The market is rapidly evolving with new players, technologies and partnership models.
For companies currently negotiating content licensing deals with AI, Howard says to move forward. He points out that, while there are benchmarks based on what other companies have secured, the initial rush of deals has likely passed. He doesn’t expect future deals to improve; in fact, he thinks they’ll probably get worse.
Mabrey believes that the industry has reached a unique inflection point, where generative AI gives it the chance to assert that content is intellectual property and requires compensation. “We, as a media community around the world, should be coming together to assure that all of us are asserting our rights in the same manner.”
In light of these shifts, there’s a clear message for media executives: the future of content licensing is in their hands. Instead of letting the industry define them, publishers can shape the future of the industry by hammering out a windfall through litigation and the courts, negotiating partnerships, and advocating for fair treatment.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming the way media companies operate. From automating article summaries to addressing editorial efficiencies, the use of AI has helped media companies save time and streamline operations. While AI offers substantial benefits, recent studies have revealed a trust gap between media companies and their audiences around AI use:
Since trust is the cornerstone of media, AI implementation introduces new challenges. Missteps can result in loss of reader trust, damage to brand reputation and potential legal and regulatory challenges.
As AAM developed its new Ethical AI Certification program, we researched how media companies are implementing AI and studied industry-recommended best practices for increasing transparency and disclosing AI use. This research resulted in the development of several guidelines for media companies to increase transparency and maintain reader trust when integrating AI solutions into their operations.
1. Clear and consistent AI labeling
AI-generated or assisted content should be visibly labeled and disclosed. Labels should be placed prominently with an article or video rather than buried in fine print.
Here are two examples of how media companies are disclosing AI use:
The Associated Press created standards around generative AI. While the tools may change, the core values remain – journalists are accountable for the accuracy and fairness of the information they share.
USA Today adds disclosures to indicate when AI is used to write its “Key Points” at the top of selected articles. It also discloses that a journalist reviewed the AI-generated content before publication and includes a link its ethical conduct policy.
2. Create and publicize AI policies to build trust
Media companies should publish a clear AI policy outlining:
How and when AI is used
The company’s privacy policy when involving AI use
Editorial guidelines for AI-generated content
How the company will handle ethical issues including bias mitigation and misinformation prevention
Policies should be easily accessible on company websites and updated regularly. Media companies also should ensure that they have licensing agreements in place to use the information and data provided by their AI solutions in published content.
3. Human oversight and accountability
Human oversight of AI-generated content is also essential to include when implementing AI, especially in editorial. Assign clear roles and responsibilities for AI oversight within newsrooms and establish an internal AI ethics committee to assess AI applications, guide policy development and ensure ongoing compliance with ethical standards.
4. Ongoing education
Since AI best practices and regulations are constantly evolving, it’s important for media companies to provide ongoing training for staff on AI technology, ethics and best practices. Hosting regular training workshops and updating employees on policy changes helps companies stay ahead of evolving AI trends while ensuring responsible and ethical AI usage.
5. Regular audits and risk assessments
Media companies should conduct regular assessments to manage AI risks including assessing the accuracy of AI-generated content, the effectiveness of company transparency measures and potential challenges including bias and inaccuracy in AI-generated content.
As AI continues to evolve, transparency remains essential to preserving trust between media companies and audiences. By implementing these industry best practices and guidelines, media companies can take the lead in setting a higher industry standard, maintaining audience trust and ensuring ethical AI implementation within their operations.
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?
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.
/ An inside look at the business of digital content
Archive
