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

Digital Content Next logo

Menu

Research / Insights on current and emerging industry topics

Archive Archive

Archives

  •  
  •  
---An empty office to imply disappearing local journalism---
Industry-Research | Research

Local journalism matters. And it’s disappearing fast

Local journalism is essential to the health of American communities. The American Journalism Project frames local news as a public good essential to democracy. It holds local officials accountable, informs residents about critical issues, and fosters a sense of connection and trust. Yet, as newsrooms close and resources shrink, many communities are left without a reliable source of local coverage, often referred to as the rise of “news deserts.”  

A new report from Muck Rack and Rebuild Local News offers a clearer picture of just how widespread this problem is today. The Local Journalist Index is the first county-by-county count of local journalists across all 3,141 U.S. counties. It maps out where journalists are still doing the essential work of community reporting and where they no longer exist. Muck Rack’s massive database of articles and contributors powers the analysis. In particular, it identifies which writers actually focus on local issues rather than simply reposting national news. 

Active journalists

This index goes beyond basic headcounts. It examines the number of local journalists actively contributing to news stories in each area and utilizes a unique metric called the Local Journalist Equivalent, or LJE. This method ensures that counties in metro areas, where news outlets often serve multiple regions, still receive proportional credit for their local coverage. The result is a more accurate snapshot of local news distribution.  

More than 1,000 counties across the U.S. do not have a single full-time local journalist. The report notes that when local news disappears, civic engagement drops and misinformation spreads more easily. Residents lose access to critical information about their health, safety, and local governance. Local journalism doesn’t just report on communities; it also fosters a sense of community.  

Geographical differences 

Some of the hardest hit areas may not be surprising. Rural counties across the Midwest and South show significant gaps in local coverage. Nevada ranks last in the number of journalists per 100,000 people. However, there are some bright spots as well. Places like Athens County, Ohio and Albemarle County, Virginia, benefit from the presence of nearby universities, where student journalists help fill coverage gaps. 

The index also reveals striking differences within states. For example, New York is home to some of the country’s most prominent newsrooms. Yet many counties outside the metro area show extremely low local journalist counts.  

To make the data more meaningful, the index adjusts for population size and accounts for rural, suburban, and urban community types. Whether you live in a small town or a major city, the shortage of trusted, local voices is a growing concern. 

Restoring local journalism  

Report for America is one initiative helping to rebuild local journalism by placing early-career reporters in under-covered communities. Launched in 2018, the program is placing hundreds of journalists in local newsrooms across the country. In May 2025, Report for America announced 107 new placements, bringing its active corps to 187. These journalists are covering critical local issues in areas that often lack reliable reporting, with many focusing on communities of color, rural regions, and immigrant populations. 

This first edition of the Local Journalist Index is a call to action. By showing where journalists are needed most, it offers a roadmap for funders, policymakers, and advocates working to rebuild local news. This report sheds light on where local journalism thrives and where it is faltering. The index reveals the stark situation for local journalism and should offer communities a powerful catalyst for change. 

__Happy man paying for streaming subscription __
Industry-Research | Research | Video

Streaming subscriptions stay strong amid economic concerns

Entertainment remains one of the most resilient categories in household spending, even as many Americans look for ways to cut back. From concerts and travel to dining out and streaming subscriptions, people continue to seek out experiences that bring joy, escape, and connection.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, consumer spending on recreation services, including streaming, live events, and travel, grew by over 7% year-over-year in Q1 2025. This growth outpaced the overall increase in personal consumption, signaling strong demand for experience-based activities.

But strength in entertainment spending doesn’t mean consumers aren’t anxious. Inflation, recession fears, and rising prices are still top of mind. So, where do consumers draw the line, and what entertainment is worth the cost when budgets are tight?

New findings from Hub Entertainment Research show a notable increase in anxiety among consumers since late 2024, particularly about inflation and the risk of recession. This economic unease is prompting many viewers to reassess their spending on entertainment. Yet, unlike concerts, theme parks, and other one-time events, TV and streaming subscriptions appear relatively resistant to budget cuts and cancellations. Streaming’s staying power comes down to perceived value. Aside from vacations, TV and movie streaming rank above all other entertainment alternatives.

Price sensitivity for streaming subscriptions

Nearly nine in 10 viewers now say subscription prices are increasing more frequently. This sensitivity is prompting some to rethink their spending and consider switching to lower-cost, ad-supported tiers. More than half are willing to spend more on streaming if it allows them to reduce other discretionary entertainment costs.

Ad-supported models are generally becoming more appealing. The share of viewers who say they “can’t tolerate ads” continues to decline, dropping to just 11%, from 17% four years ago. Even among this ad-intolerant group, more are now saying they would prefer to save $4–5 per month by accepting ads, rather than pay for an ad-free experience.

Service aggregators play a key role in keeping subscribers engaged. Platforms like Amazon Prime Video, Roku, YouTube, and Apple TV help users manage their growing number of subscriptions. Half of all viewers now use an aggregator, and among 18- to 34-year-olds, that number jumps to 60%. Those who use aggregators are more likely to hold six or more subscriptions, while those without typically have just three or fewer.

Insert aggregator subscriptions chart

YouTube’s multiple products

YouTube is also an increasingly vital part of the media and entertainment ecosystem. Although many users still watch YouTube content on mobile devices, half of them now stream it regularly on television screens. YouTube’s suite of offerings, including its free, ad-supported content, outperforms both subscription and other free services in perceived value.

Despite its strong position, streaming is not immune to viewer pushback. While consumers rank it as one of the last things they’d cut, that sentiment hinges on continued value delivery. If prices rise too often or too steeply, even loyal subscribers may begin to reconsider.

__Among streamers, consumers think free YouTube is the best value as compared to subscription streaming___

Mark Loughney, Senior Consultant at Hub, notes that while consumers remain anxious about the economy, video subscriptions are among the last things they’re willing to cut. However, that’s only if streaming services don’t push prices too far.

In short, the data highlight a clear takeaway for both consumers and the industry: streaming remains a cornerstone of American entertainment spending. Its blend of variety, convenience, and value continues to resonate even in a tighter economic climate. Providers that keep prices in check, lean into flexible ad-supported tiers, and make discovery effortless stand to deepen that loyalty. With people’s concerns about the economy continuing to rise, the winners will be services that repeatedly prove one simple equation to viewers: more content, less friction, best value.

Happy media executives and brand partner success -------------------
Advertising | Industry-Research | Supporter Spotlight | Video

Media companies: Here’s how to win big with brand partners

For media executives, streaming used to be a thorn in the side of linear TV. Not anymore. With consumers continuing to cut the cord and major players like Netflix, Amazon, and Disney+ finally adding ad-supported tiers to their offerings, streaming has become the new front line of not just TV programming, but TV advertising too.  

I was in Cannes a few weeks ago to meet with clients and understand their priorities for the year ahead. We had just come out with a new report on the rise of streaming TV and shared some impressive top numbers with the industry. But, unsurprisingly, they wanted to know where growth was most likely to come from for them. 

It’s all well and good that auto, retail, finance, and pharma companies are spending over $1 billion on streaming platforms, they said, but which of those (and a dozen other) industries should they appeal to first? What types of advertisers within those industries might be most likely to respond? And for our media clients with both linear and streaming properties, how should they balance their media sales efforts between streaming and traditional TV?

To kick start the conversation, we decided to use our MediaRadar data to compare what brands have been spending on streaming platforms over the past few years to what they’ve been spending on linear TV. Mind you, not just linear TV but what most consider the bastion of linear TV: NFL broadcasts. The early results are remarkable and might affect how you think about your next media sales pitch.

Why NFL advertisers?

NFL games — and live sports in general — are tentpole events keeping traditional TV alive. However, streaming sports deals are multiplying and starting to lift media companies beyond major broadcasters too. Most football advertisers are in it for the reach and are well entrenched in linear TV advertising. However, many others are starting to recognize streaming as a natural extension of their traditional TV investments and a way to take their targeting capabilities to new heights. We thought that the intersection of those two advertising universes — streaming TV on one hand, and NFL games on linear TV on the other — would offer interesting contrasts and actionable insights for streaming media executives at a crucial time in their platforms’ development.

Another reason why this comparison is interesting is that advertisers spend about as much on NFL linear TV broadcasts ($8.5 billion during the 2024-25 season) as they do across all programs on streaming platforms ($7 billion during those same six months). So we’re not talking about two wildly different media channels with very unique advertising patterns and dynamics. It’s not streaming against the whole of linear TV and its $60 billion advertising market, for instance.

The overlap here is substantial. Figure 1 shows that between early August 2024 and early February 2025 (from the NFL pre-season to Super Bowl LIX), 23% of all the brands in our analysis advertised both on streaming platforms and during an NFL game on linear TV.

Figure 1:  Overlap between streaming and linear TV advertisers during the 2024-25 NFL season
Source: MediaRadar

Football TV advertisers make clutch streaming partners

Of all the brands that advertised on streaming platforms in that six-month period, roughly half aired commercials during NFL games on linear TV as well. That’s been a fairly consistent picture over the years, as Figure 2 illustrates. The share of brands that advertise exclusively on linear TV has also been shrinking every year.

Figure 2:  Share of the number of streaming and linear TV advertisers during the last four NFL seasons
Source: MediaRadar

There’s still a long way to go to convince all of those brands to give streaming a chance. However, those that have made the jump already contribute the lion’s share of streaming TV revenues. Figure 3 shows that they represented 23% of all advertisers during the 2024-25 NFL season but accounted for 64% of all media spend in our analysis (and 87% of all streaming media spend).

Figure 3: Share of streaming and NFL media spend on linear TV during the last four NFL seasons
Source: MediaRadar

Move up the chains

What type of brand should your media sales team pursue first? On average, beer & wine brands spent $1.2 million on all streaming platforms from Aug ‘24 to Feb ‘25, but they spent nearly $7.4 million during NFL games on linear TV. There’s plenty of room to grow. During that same period, telecom advertisers spent $2.7 million on streaming and $6.5 million on NFL TV broadcasts. Car manufacturers: $4.5 million and $11.7 million. Figure 4 shows the current gap in media spend for a typical brand in a number of sports-friendly industries.

Figure 4:  Average media spend per advertiser during the 2024-25 NFL season (million dollars)
Source: MediaRadar

In some sectors like restaurants, pharma, or insurance, streaming budgets are already on par with football budgets on linear TV, but they’re well behind in many other popular sectors. As more NFL games and other sports franchises transition to streaming, there’s a clear opportunity for media sales teams to bring those budgets closer together.

That doesn’t mean that streaming growth will always come at the expense of linear TV, of course. Between Aug ‘24 and Feb ‘25, Modelo tripled its streaming budget (from $4.4 million to $14.5 million) while also increasing its NFL linear TV budget by 20% (from $39.4 million to $47.2 million). But if you want to move the chains for your digital platform, you could do a lot worse than sports advertisers new to streaming and used to spending a lot on TV.

With the 2025-26 NFL season right around the corner, it’s time to study the field and draw up a winning playbook.

Note: MediaRadar’s streaming tracking expanded to include Netflix during H2 2022 and Disney+ during H1 2023. Insignificant variance to the number of streaming advertisers. Analysis not adjusted and reflective of current conditions.
UK decision makers' media habits
Industry-Research | Research

Inside the media mindset of UK decision-makers 

Amid nonstop news cycles and rising media skepticism, one audience remains deeply engaged and increasingly strategic in how they consume information. Decision-makers in the UK aren’t just reading the news; they’re curating it across various platforms, formats, and technologies to stay ahead of the curve. 

Portland’s Decision Makers and the News research explores this dynamic in depth and takes a deep look at the media habits of UK professionals, what sources they trust, and how their habits are evolving. The findings shed light on a critical audience that often shapes public discourse while navigating a constantly evolving digital landscape.  

Curators, not merely consumers 

The report confirms that decision-makers are not passive news consumers. They are intentional curators of their media diet. While 41% of the UK public say they actively seek out news, the number rises to 56% among decision-makers. They build a personalized portfolio of sources, balancing legacy outlets like The Guardian and BBC with emerging platforms like Substack, Medium, and YouTube. 

Notably, this group reads deeply and broadly. While traditional print brands remain influential, 60% of respondents still read newspaper content; digital and audio sources are also firmly entrenched. Nearly 80% of decision-makers subscribe to at least one news-focused email newsletter, and 42% regularly listen to news podcasts, double the national average. 

AI is changing decision-makers’ media habits 

Interestingly, 81% of decision-makers use AI tools to stay informed, nearly twice the rate of the general population. Platforms like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot are becoming go-to sources for clarity and context. For 8% of respondents, AI is already their first stop when seeking further information on a story, just shy of Wikipedia’s 10%. This shift highlights a new layer of influence: what AI tools see and how they weigh information may shape the perceptions of this elite audience.  

While their media habits are evolving, decision-makers continue to place a high value on trusted news institutions. The Guardian emerges as the top newspaper brand among this group in terms of consumption and trust, followed by The Times, The Sun, and the Financial Times. On the broadcast front, the BBC remains dominant, reaching 79% of decision-makers and earning the highest trust rating (56%). YouTube, interestingly, is now the third most-trusted video platform (47%). 

A preference for digestible short form media

Though highly engaged, decision-makers are not immune to news fatigue. One-third say they’re less interested in news than they were a year ago, with lack of time cited as the top reason. In fact, 39% prefer short-form articles over long-form content, nearly double the 21% who still favor in-depth readings. 

Newsletters are a clear winner, with the BBC News Daily, Politico Playbooks, and Guardian briefings among the most popular. Podcasts also thrive, with “Sky News Daily” and “The Rest is Politics” topping the charts.  

In today’s media ecosystem, the most influential sources are those that score high on both trust and consumption. The report’s “trust matrix” shows that the BBC, The Guardian, YouTube, and Instagram sit at the intersection of those two forces. These are the formats and platforms that shape the conclusions of decision-makers.  

These findings show that reaching today’s influential decision makers demands a multi-format strategy built on trust and optimized for AI. Traditional outlets remain important, but so do newsletters, podcasts, LinkedIn posts, and being visible in AI-generated summaries. In this landscape, brevity and discoverability are as critical as reach. 

Group of teens vetting the news to decide what they trust --------
Industry-Research | Research

Gen Z is skeptical and selective of news – but still engaged

In a digital environment where information moves quickly and influencers often shape public opinion it can seem like Gen Z is turning away from traditional journalism. But young people continue to seek credible, professional news, especially when stories are significant or hit close to home. At Owasso High School in Oklahoma, students did just that following the unexpected death of a classmate. Despite false or misleading posts circulating online, many actively sought accurate information and turned to reliable news sources that they felt they could trust.

News literacy advocate Hannah Covington highlights this behavior in an article detailing her conversations with teens about conspiracy theories. Sixteen-year-old Andie Murphy, for example, deleted Instagram over concerns about AI-driven data collection. Once a regular consumer of influencer content, she now checks multiple professional outlets before accepting information as accurate. “I just couldn’t trust what I was seeing anymore,” she said. Her shift reflects a broader change in how Gen Z engages with news.

Recent 2025 studies reinforce this news trust trend

Research from Raptive supports this noted shift in Gen Z’s relationship with news and information. Their study finds that 49% of Gen Z actively verify online information by checking trusted, credible sources, while 55% say they trust content from established experts over influencers or peer posts. Notably, 39% view social platforms as less credible compared to open-web sources. These findings reflect a generation that is not only skeptical, but also intentional in its pursuit of accurate information.

According to the Poynter Institute, while teens may not frequently use dedicated news apps, they actively seek out reliable sources like CNN and the Associated Press during moments of uncertainty. About 20% of surveyed adolescents say they encounter fake news daily. However, many report that they turn to trusted news outlets when crises hit.

Similarly, Common Sense Media found that teens are increasingly wary of digital content, especially AI-generated material. In its 2025 research, teens express deep skepticism toward manipulated images and videos, with one respondent noting, “I already doubt everything I read online.” This mistrust is driving more teens toward professional journalism for verification and reassurance.

Peer fact-checking reinforces news habits

Covington’s reporting also highlights how peer influence reinforces this fact-checking culture. In school libraries and hallways, students openly challenge each other around misinformation. These real-time corrections help shape a community that values accuracy and critical thinking. For Gen Z, information vetting is becoming a social skill.

While teens may not engage with mainstream media daily, they don’t dismiss it. Covington’s interviews confirm that students return to professional news brands when a story feels urgent or emotionally charged. “If it’s big enough, I’ll check real news sites,” one student explained. That behavior underscores an important truth: for Gen Z, trust in established news sources and journalism often reactivates in moments of crisis.

This pattern aligns with Common Sense Media’s findings, which note that teens are eager for tools that help them navigate digital uncertainty. While skepticism runs high, so does the demand for guidance. Likewise, Poynter’s research shows that even teens regularly exposed to misinformation seek clarity from reputable sources during confusing or high-stakes events.

Gen Z’s relationship with news is complex but far from disengaged. They are critical of what they see, cautious about interpreting it, and selective in who they trust. When news matters, especially during confusion, fear, or grief, they turn to professional journalism for clarity. Their behavior suggests a desire not just for content, but for credibility. In a noisy and uncertain information landscape, Gen Z continues to seek out trustworthy news.

Research Image
DCN-Research | Research

Inside the 2024 DCN Benchmark Reports

DCN’s 2024 Benchmark Reports, exclusive to participating members, offer a comprehensive, data-rich look at the financial and operational health of premium digital media businesses. Across both revenue and expense modules, this year’s newly released findings capture a clear picture of where the business is growing, where efficiencies are being realized, and how peers are adapting in a shifting market.

Key topline signals: modest overall revenue growth (+3% YoY), continued strength in non-advertising and video, and early signs of stabilization in mobile ad revenue. On the cost side, compensation remains the largest investment, while EBITDA margins held strong, evidence of strategic cost management in a demanding environment.

This year’s reports offer valuable context on subscriber revenue, monetization efficiency, staffing trends, and the evolving balance between direct and indirect ad sales. For participants, it’s not just data; it’s a playbook for what is working now.

As a benchmark participant, you have exclusive access to DCN Media Insights Exchange. These sessions, part of a quarterly series, provide valuable marketplace context to the insights in DCN’s benchmark reports.

These insights are available only to members who contributed data. If you’re interested in participating in future waves, reach out to Rande Price at Rande@digitalcontentnext.org.

A group of Gen Z people creating news content
Industry-Research | Research

Get to know Gen Z’s news habits to build future audiences 

Young audiences are reshaping the American media landscape. In the United States, over half (54%) of 18–24-year-olds now cite social media and video networks as their main source of news, surpassing both television (50%) and news websites or apps (48%) for the first time. Among 18–49-year-olds, only 34% name social or video platforms as their primary news source, and that number drops to just 18% for those aged 55 and older. Meanwhile, 61% of older adults still rely on television.

This generational divide marks a dramatic shift in how Gen Z accesses information, driven less by traditional brand loyalty and more by personality, convenience, and platform-native content. For digital media leaders focused on long-term sustainability, understanding these behaviors is critical to developing meaningful engagement strategies. 


Research signals a strategic inflection point 

Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 offers a detailed look at generational dynamics in news consumption and preferences. The data shows that young Americans increasingly discover news through influencers and podcasters. Twenty-two percent of respondents under 35 reported encountering news via Joe Rogan in the last week. These audiences over-index on video platforms like YouTube and TikTok, where personality-driven content outpaces institutional journalism in both reach and resonance. To address this preference, the report encourages journalists to use their authentic voices to initiate direct engagement through video storytelling on social media platforms. 

Creators, not channels 

Social platforms now play a central role in Gen Z’s news discovery. Reuters’ report finds that Gen Z consumers in the U.S. are turning toward creators who blend news with humor, commentary, or lifestyle content. Figures like Brian Tyler Cohen and Megyn Kelly attract strong attention from younger audiences and show that Gen Z places trust in personal relevance. Among U.S. 18–24-year-olds, traditional news websites and apps rank fourth in importance behind social video, TV, and podcasts. 

This shift is not simply about platform, but about form. Video continues to gain ground as the preferred way of consuming news, particularly among Gen Z. In the U.S., news video consumption is at 72% in 2025 for all U.S. adults from 55% in 2021. Much of this growth happens on third-party platforms like YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, not on news websites. Prioritizing video formats that are concise, authentic, and visually native to social platforms is essential to reaching Gen Z. These elements form the core of the Gen Z playbook for tone, pace, and relevance in news consumption. 

DCN’s recent research, How Gen Z & Gen Y Are Redefining Video Engagement, reinforces these findings with first-party behavioral data. The study shows that Gen Z strongly prefers video that is purposeful, short-form, and mobile-native—and that attention is earned, not assumed. Their engagement habits mirror the Reuters data: trust, relevance, and entertainment value must converge, particularly on platforms where news must compete with a broad spectrum of content. Together, these reports confirm that journalists who attract younger audiences must match their editorial voice with platform-appropriate formats, both in feed and in mindset.

Podcasts and personal connection 

Audio is also proving a powerful entry point. The report shows that 15% of Americans now consume news podcasts weekly. These podcasts increasingly appear as videos, giving publishers a dual-platform opportunity to repurpose content across YouTube and TikTok. For Gen Z, podcasts provide a sense of intimacy and connection, qualities that traditional news outlets often find hard to convey. 

AI and news personalization on the rise 

Because of the way in which young people seek out news (particularly in the era of AI-agents and search), personalization is becoming a focal point. This isn’t simply about novelty; it’s very much about functionality. The report points out that young audiences respond to tools that help them summarize, translate, and interact with news on their own terms.

Gen Z turns to the news they trust 

Despite a fragmented information ecosystem, the report reveals that Gen Z still values accuracy and verification. When asked where they go to check if something might be false, young people are still likely to name trusted news brands, especially public service media. They are less likely to rely on social media, AI chatbots, or peer comments when verifying information. This underscores an important point: trusted brands did not disappear. However, many media brands need to be reintroduced in formats that fit Gen Z’s media habits to become a regular part of their information diet. 

Gen Z’s relationship with news reflects a deeper shift in how trust, relevance, and engagement are earned today. Their preferences include short-form video, podcasts, creators, and AI-powered tools. These choices are not a rejection of journalism but a reimagining of how it fits into their lives. This generation still values core principles like accuracy and verification. They simply expect those values to show up in formats that feel personal, accessible, and native to their platforms. 

A phone showing icons of social platforms including Bluesky, Twitter, and Mastodon to illustrate a story about social platforms news influecners prefer
Industry-Research

Bluesky’s rise signals a social media shift for news influencers

The social media landscape continues to shift as platforms compete for the attention of journalists, creators, and their audiences. While X (formerly Twitter) still leads in real-time news distribution, emerging platforms like Bluesky are gaining momentum. This is especially true among news influencers who seek more control, transparency, and healthier online communities.

New Pew research, Bluesky has caught on with many news influencers, but X remains popular, along with three independent academic studies, sheds light on how news influencers are navigating the shifting social landscape. The findings highlight a post-election surge in Bluesky’s popularity and underscore key design features that make the platform appealing.

Post-election Bluesky surge

According to Pew’s report, Bluesky’s use among news influencers nearly doubled in the four months following the 2024 presidential election, from 21% in November 2024 to 43% by March 2025. This growth was most prominent among politically left-leaning influencers.

News influencers on Bluesky are posting more now than they did at the start of the year with post volume rising from 54% in January 2025 to 66% in March 2025. X remains popular but shows a dip in activity from 92% of news influencers post in January 2025 to 87% in March 2025. It’s important to note that most news influencers on Bluesky are also on X and post there frequently.

Yet, despite Bluesky’s rising influence, X remains the top platform for reaching broad news audiences across the political spectrum.

Pew chart showing news influencers' social platform choices. They have joined Bluesky in large numbers but about twice as many are on X

Pew attributes Bluesky’s growth to its decentralized architecture, customizable algorithmic feeds, and emphasis on user-driven moderation. These features appeal to news influencers who feel constrained by X’s centralized and often controversial environment.

Independent academic research supports Pew’s conclusions. A study led by Gianluca Nogara and others, A Longitudinal Analysis of Misinformation, Polarization, and Censorship on Bluesky, finds that Bluesky maintains relatively low toxicity levels. It attracts a mostly left-leaning influencer base and scores high credibility in news content. The study also shows that Bluesky’s structure helps limit the spread of misinformation and encourages healthier discourse.

Another study from researchers at TU Darmstadt, Looking at the Blue Skies of Bluesky, further validates the findings here. While Bluesky shares structural similarities with other social networks, it provides distinct features, transparent algorithmic feeds, decentralized governance, and a strong emphasis on moderation. These elements, the researchers argue, drive Bluesky’s appeal among news professionals and digital creators.

Together, these studies present a consistent narrative. Bluesky’s focus on transparency, user control, and credible information resonates with today’s journalists, who want safer, more meaningful ways to engage with their audiences.

Although Bluesky is gaining traction, Pew’s latest data shows that X is holding on to its place as the go-to platform for news influencers. As of 2025, 82% of U.S. news influencers have an account on X, reinforcing its position as the leading channel for reaching wide and diverse audiences. This trend is echoed in research by Dorian Quelle and Alexandre Bovet, whose study Network Topology and Community Structure of the Decentralized Social Network Bluesky finds that while Bluesky supports tight-knit, topic-specific communities, X remains centerl stage for mainstream news and public discourse.

Leading social platform for news distribution

For many influencers and the media companies that work with them, X’s network effects, reach, and familiarity still deliver unmatched value for news distribution.

Pew’s broader findings reveal a growing appetite for news delivered by influencers across platforms:

  • 21% of U.S. adults now say they regularly get news from social media influencers
  • Among adults under 30, that figure rises to 37%
  • 65% of these news consumers report that influencers improve their understanding of current events
  • 71% believe that the news they receive from influencers differs meaningfully from traditional sources (Pew Research Center)

These research reports suggest that Bluesky’s rise signals a shift among news influencers seeking greater control, transparency, and healthier online interactions. While X remains dominant for broad news distribution, Bluesky’s appeal highlights the growing demand for alternative platforms particularly to distribute and engage with news.

Featured Post | Industry-Research | Perspectives

Don’t rush to replace your science reporters with AI just yet

The promise of AI’s efficiency and speed in sifting through vast amounts of data and producing content has led many to speculate that it can replace parts of the journalistic process. (This despite a lukewarm reception from news consumers and ambivalence among journalists themselves.) However, Axios’ recent move to ask employees to argue why a human should do a job that AI might be able to do seems to signal a false binary. In this either-or situation, we’d replace expertise with expedience, possibly at the risk of accuracy – which could have grave consequences.

Axios is far from alone in experimenting with AI to augment journalism. However, as is the case in many industries, there is a rush to employ AI in a way that supplants rather than supplements. And that, in turn, could create a gap in the entry level employee pipeline. In the case of journalism, this may mean that the established process of developing expertise breaks down. It is certainly a challenge to build deep subject domain knowledge. But it is possible that this lengthy process could be restructured to be both more supportive and efficient.

A recent study, Generalization bias in large language model summarization of scientific research published in Royal Society Open Science, highlights a critical issue: media coverage of scientific research often fails to capture the nuance and complexity inherent in the scientific process. However, the research finds that AI also fails at the task of summarizing scientific papers and abstracts accurately. As more and more people – journalists, medical professionals, scientists, educators and students – rely on AI-generated summaries and content, the results of this study beg the question as to whether we’re integrating AI to effectively support work processes.

Media coverage of scientific research has issues

As the public’s primary source of information on the latest scientific discoveries and advancements, the media holds the power to shape public understanding, perception and opinion. Accurately presenting findings from scientific and medical studies is paramount. As this study and others show, AI agents tested weren’t able to do the job. This seemingly automatable task would appear to be not-so-automatable after all.

Reporting on scientific research isn’t simple, as we’ve seen in the past. The temptation to prioritize sensationalism and oversimplification over nuanced reporting looms large, in part because of media business models driven by engagement metrics and fast news cycles. Scientific work does not produce definitive outcomes (inferences) so much as it accumulates evidence to suggest a truth. Even in the case of studying phenomena that are reasonably and reliably measured, such as in physics, the theories that are the outcome of science are, in fact, theories! For example, if a study says a certain treatment was found to reduce incidences of a disease in a very specific group of people during a 10-week trial, the exciting news might seem to be that a given disease is now curable. Sadly, it isn’t. This would be a misinterpretation of the study results.  

Moreover, science itself is rarely straightforward. Study results can be contradictory, because of subtle, or not so subtle, differences in hypotheses, cohorts, measurements and methodology. Particularly because journalists often work on tight deadlines, statistics may be misinterpreted or decontextualized thus potentially misleading the public.

This new research found that, when summarizing scientific texts, chatbots may omit details that limit the scope of research conclusions, leading to generalizations of results broader than warranted by the original study. (Mind you, they compared the chatbot-derived summaries to those published in The New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch, and did not check other types of summaries written by individuals with lesser domain expertise.) Press releases written to “hype” new research, may succumb to overgeneralization, as well. And, like all research, there are likely other teams putting AI tools to similar tests. So, even as I anchor my point to the article published in RSOS, I remain keenly aware that new research that reinforces, expands, or contradicts these findings may be published imminently.

What’s at stake when media fails to get science right

It is critical not only that we best employ emerging tools such as AI to support the production of quality journalism, but also that we continue to support and foster the development of science reporters. There’s much at stake if we fail to get scientific coverage right.

At its worst, the media’s coverage of scientific research can contribute to misinformation and the erosion of public trust in science.

However, at its best, science-based journalism has the power to inform the public and help set the agenda in two ways: First, by circulating what the scientific community considers the most important discoveries and applications. And secondly, by generating public interest in specific ideas, discoveries, or technologies that have previously been rejected or overlooked, as noted by Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald L. Shaw over 50 years ago.

Science communication acts as a bridge, shaping perceptions and priorities on both sides. As new breakthroughs emerge, the media plays a crucial role in determining which ones capture the public’s attention. This symbiotic relationship between science and society is an important dynamic for media professionals to understand. Journalists must embrace the nuance and complexity of scientific research to effectively inform and educate the public, even as AI threatens to displace journalists and media organizations move beyond delegation towards automation.

Using the tools properly to create the best science journalism

If science reporting is indeed in crisis, reliance on AI will not improve the situation. Instead, we should give novice journalists the opportunity to summarize abstracts and papers, thereby learning to translate scientific jargon into more accessible language without losing context and nuance. Perhaps, this could be achieved through collaboration with a “dumb” AI chatbot and a human mentor, fostering a learning environment that emphasizes the importance of nuanced understanding.

If the future of white collar work is to rely more heavily on experts and cutting entry level positions, as suggested by both Anthropic’s CEO and Axios’ chief executive, then the future does indeed look grim. Experts aren’t hatched fully formed. Expertise is cultivated through experience and engagement with complex tasks. It starts, however, by slogging through the boring, automatable tasks now passed on to AI. As a doctoral student, I would have been tempted to use AI to summarize academic papers, find relevant quotes. But I wouldn’t be the expert I am today if I had taken that shortcut. A person becomes an expert. No one is born an expert, and neither is an AI assistant.

I’m not arguing against the use of AI. It’s a brilliant tool with valuable applications. However, as with most major shifts – and scientific discovery and reporting itself – it is often necessary to invest time and effort to get things right. Media leaders may want to take a step back, evaluate the hype and explore ways to integrate AI that supports the delicate task of reporting on science in a nuanced, thoughtful way. Perhaps then, we can ensure that reporting on science informs rather than misleads, ultimately fostering a more scientifically literate society.

Concept art to suggest leaders considering AI risk
Industry-Research | Policy

What media leaders need to know about AI risk and regulation

Organizations and individuals around the world are becoming increasingly reliant upon AI. However, adoption of AI methods by organizations is outpacing risk mitigation, and consumers are increasingly apprehensive about its use. While geographic regions have different approaches to regulating AI use, research indicates that increased data security measures and regulation positively influence customer confidence.

User concerns grow globally

Recent research found low trust in AL combined with high support for increased regulation. Trust, Attitudes, and Use of Artificial Intelligence: A Global Study 2025, led by the University of Melbourne in collaboration with KPMG, surveyed over 48,000 people across 47 countries. The study found that most people report using AI regularly. And even more support AI regulations:

  • 66% of people use AI regularly, and 83% believe AI will bring significant benefits.
  • Despite this, only 46% of people globally report trust in AI systems.
  • 70% of respondents support national and international AI regulation.

As international consumers are increasingly relying on AI, they are also expressing increased trepidation over issues of trust and transparency. Tech engagement, while strong across markets, is especially robust in emerging markets such as India, Brazil, and China, according to Kantar Media’s Global Digital Media and Tech Trends Report. The report analyzed data derived from 80,000 respondents in 37 countries. 86% of media users from India answered yes to “I try to keep up with developments in technology” as did 76% of those in China and 73% of those in Brazil – compared to 62% of U.S. respondents.  A large majority of media users in India (78%) agreed with the statement: “Artificial intelligence has had a significant impact on my daily life.” More than half of Brazilians agreed (52%), compared to less than half (46%) of U.S. respondents.

According to the Adobe 2025 Digital Trends Report, key issues around AI adoption include trust and the use of AI include balance, transparency, and data security.  The balance between innovation and trust is an ongoing challenge: both privacy concerns and governance complexities remain significant hurdles. Of the 8,301 consumers surveyed by Adobe, close to half (45%) claim to prioritize visibility and control over their data, while a third (33%) say they demand clarity on how AI is used to generate recommendations. As organizations move beyond pilot programs to scale AI initiatives, they must focus on clear disclosure and ethical AI practices to maintain credibility.

Trust erosion and AI adoption

A recent study by Thales reveals that consumers’ trust in organizations to use their data responsibly in the age of AI is rapidly waning. However, increased regulation alleviated some of the distrust.

  • In 2024, 47% of consumers questioned whether companies used AI responsibly. By 2025, this concern rose to 57% – a marked leap in just one year.
  • The 2025 global trust index found global trust rates stagnating or declining, with no sector achieving more than 50% “high trust” ratings. However, industries (such as banking and healthcare) and geographies with the most regulations had higher trust rates.
  • Trust in news media hit a new low, with news organizations trusted by only 3% of consumers in 2025, a decline from 6% in 2024. Some of this drop was attributed to slackening oversight (particularly from social platforms).
  • In contrast, Government services saw improvement, increasing from 37% trust in 2024 to 42% in 2025, an improvement possibly driven by enhanced regulatory frameworks like the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA).
Few organizations have a policy around AI usage, which will affect consumer trust

These studies indicate increasing awareness on the part of consumers about the risks inherent in AI technology. This underscores the need for media executives to demonstrate strong governance and proactive leadership.

AI data risk found to be almost universal

Consumer trepidation is far from unfounded. The 2025 State of Data Security Report by Varonis quantifies the data risk entailed by AI usage based on data obtained from 1,000 companies. Findings confirm that AI adoption is leaping ahead of risk mitigation. Among the findings: 99% of organizations have had sensitive data exposed to AI tools.

The report also indicates 88% of organizations evaluated had old but still enabled user accounts, which are potential entry points for attackers. The report also reveals that 90% of the organizations studied have exposed sensitive cloud data, and 98% were found to have employees using unsanctioned apps, including shadow AI. The study underscores an urgent need for stronger data governance frameworks in the age of AI.

As previously reported by DCN, a plan that includes transparency, balance, and education can offset some AI concerns. However, the conundrum remains that while most users claim to want transparency around the use of AI, revealing such origins can undermine trust. In addition to the very real risks of data exposure, AI use by organizations risks turning off consumers who perceive a lack of human connection and oversight. Media Pulse points out that human creator content, even when flawed, feels authentic and drives stronger engagement. Thus, AI tools must always be orchestrated with human creators to maintain community trust.

Global governments differ on AI regulation

The impact of AI adoption and data security concerns will likely spur increased regulation in many locales, so companies will be wise to get ahead of future requirements. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) – the world’s first comprehensive AI regulation – officially went into force in August of 2024. Designed to ensure safe, ethical, and transparent AI development and deployment across the European Union, it requires AI content and deepfakes to be clearly labeled by 2026. Failure to disclose can lead to legal penalties.

Other countries are likely to follow suit as the impact of AI-related data risks become increasingly apparent. Brazil and Peru are currently working on AI governance frameworks based on the EU model. Canada has established the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), which focuses on transparency, accountability, and risk management for AI systems. China’s strict AI regulations include content moderation laws and licensing requirements for AI models. Meanwhile, India is developing a techno-legal approach to AI regulation. The United Kingdom leans towards a more pro-innovation approach, relying on existing regulators rather than creating new AI-specific laws. Australia boasts a comprehensive “AI assurance framework” at federal, state and territory levels.

According to Pew Research, the public is more concerned about not enough government regulation of AI than too much

Meanwhile, AI governance in the U.S. has been fragmented so far, with state-level regulations and sector-specific guidelines. Until 2025, a more nationwide approach to shaping AI governance seemed likely, but recent executive orders have been aimed at repealing AI regulations. As of this writing, The House of Representatives has passed the Budget Reconciliation Bill, which includes a 10-year moratorium on state and local laws regulating the use of AI technologies. This repeal of AI regulations, however, may be the opposite of what the majority of the public wants: More than half of U.S. adults (58%) say they are concerned that government regulation won’t go far enough in managing AI risks. Only 21% fear it will go too far, according to a recent Pew Research poll.

Different attitudes towards AI risks mean that a policy acceptable in one region might not be elsewhere. Media companies operating internationally may have to tailor AI-driven strategies to align with local regulatory expectations. The Global AI Regulation Tracker offers an interactive real-time comparison of how various countries are responding to the explosion of AI use with regulations, laws and policies

Given the research linking increased AI governance with customer confidence, being proactive about AI policy is wise from a customer service perspective. Whether or not their region requires it, media leaders will want to establish clear guidelines for AI use within their organizations to ensure practices that align with user expectations. Regulations aren’t just about compliance; they are about setting standards that align with public trust. Media leaders who responsibly integrate AI can gain a strategic advantage, with ethical AI use as a key differentiator among market competitors.

DCN-Research | Research

Digital subscription trends Q1 2025: bundling, ad-supported growth, and market shifts

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

The DCN Digital Media Subscription Tracking Report – Q1 2025 provides insights into these changes, offering year-over-year trends and brand-specific data exclusive to DCN members.

Here are key highlights from the latest report:

Steady market growth

Total digital subscriptions grew to an estimated 923 million in Q1 2025, up from 917 million in Q1 2024, signaling ongoing consumer demand across video, audio, and news platforms.

SVOD with ads gains share

Ad-supported streaming continues its upward trajectory. SVOD with ads increased its share to 28% of total digital subscriptions (up from 21% last year), while ad-free SVOD declined in share to 36% (down from 41%), reflecting a clear shift toward cost-conscious viewing options.

SVOD bundling expands its share

Consumer preference for bundled services continues to climb: 58% of SVOD subscribers now bundle services, up from 52% in Q1 2024. The average number of services per bundle increased significantly from 1.3 to 2.8, underscoring the growing share of bundled solutions in the marketplace.

News subscription shares shift

Digital newspaper subscriptions declined year over year to a 19% share of U.S. households (down from 22%), with 23% accessed through bundles. 

Magazine and audio subscription share holds steady

Magazine subscriptions maintained a 29% share, with 21% of those also bundled. Digital audio subscriptions held steady at a 57% share of U.S. households, with 16% of those delivered via bundled offerings.

As the digital media ecosystem shifts toward bundled offerings and more flexible pricing models, staying aligned with these trends is vital. The Q1 2025 report offers deep insights to help DCN members navigate an increasingly dynamic market.

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

AI impacts journalistic gatekeeping and news distribution
Industry-Research

How AI reshapes editorial authority in journalism

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing how news organizations produce and distribute content. Newsrooms use AI to generate headlines, curate stories, automate writing, and optimize content for digital platforms. Rather than simply supporting journalists, AI is actively reshaping editorial workflows, impacting how newsrooms select, edit, and present information. In short, AI is reshaping the newsroom process and the news itself, which has broad impacts on the business of media and audience perception.

Shifting controls

As AI takes on more editorial roles, it shifts control from individual journalists to automated systems optimized for engagement and scalability. Felix M. Simon’s research on how the use of artificial intelligence shapes the way news gets produced and distributed explores this shift. Instead of relying on human judgment, experience, or what’s best for the public, news decisions are now more focused on numbers, data, and technology. This change is part of a bigger trend of running things in a more controlled, predictable, and measurable manner.

Editors are using tools like algorithms and performance stats to decide what news to publish rather than just their instincts or values. This raises concerns that news is becoming too uniform, that editors have less freedom, and that journalism may not serve democracy as well as it used to.

Simon explains this type of change using the “gatekeeping theory.” The theory views news production as a series of choices, like gates, where people decide what becomes news. In the past, journalists mostly made these choices using their judgment. Digital tools and social media platforms now play a significant role in shaping those decisions.

Reshaping journalism

Simon’s study analyzes AI’s role in reconfiguring journalism processes. Based on 143 interviews across 34 news organizations in the U.S., U.K., and Germany, he identifies how and where AI integrates into news workflows. He structures his research around these central questions:

How does AI shape the gatekeeping process of the news in terms of production and distribution?
  • Where do news organizations use AI in editorial processes?
  • What effects result from its adoption in news production and distribution?

Simon’s questions guide his investigation into how AI reshapes gatekeeping and journalism’s role in the public sphere, revealing three key patterns. First, AI boosts efficiency by automating routine, time-consuming tasks such as transcription, translation, and content formatting. Second, it enhances effectiveness by enabling previously impractical tasks, like large-scale data analysis and personalized content delivery. Third, AI supports greater optimization, particularly in refining distribution strategies and managing dynamic paywall systems, ultimately transforming how news reaches and engages audiences.

AI reconfigures gatekeeping

In many cases, AI systems influence news judgment not by replacing human editors but by steering their attention through data-driven cues. These cues include story performance metrics, SEO recommendations, or algorithmic predictions of audience interest. These subtle nudges shape editorial agendas and shift newsroom priorities over time.

Additionally, AI’s influence extends into ethical domains, where concerns emerge about bias in training data, transparency in automated decisions, and the implications of delegating journalistic choices to opaque systems. These challenges push newsrooms to assess the values embedded in AI tools and develop policies for their responsible use.

Further, researchers and practitioners continue to explore how AI alters productivity, quality, and editorial judgment. Simon’s findings show that AI is not revolutionary but evolutionary and deeply embedded in journalism’s digital transformation.

  1. AI retools news production and distribution without changing journalism’s core goals.
  2. Its impact is often subtle and only becomes clear over time or at scale.
  3. AI is a mix of technologies used across the entire news process, not just in editorial work.
  4. It continues a broader trend of automation and digital transformation in journalism.
  5. While its effects are real, they’re still hard to measure or quantify fully.

Notably, Simon’s study shows how AI transforms journalistic gatekeeping and connects AI’s rise to a broader trend of automation and efficiency in journalism. While effects vary and remain difficult to measure, AI is shifting decision-making power and newsroom practices and media leaders need to be mindful of these shifts and their implications.

©2025 Digital Content Next. All Rights Reserved.