Stop shouting, start listening: How journalism can get back into the mainstream

Opinion

Journalism isn’t as important to huge swathes of the population as some of us think it is. Arguing that its future simply sits with expecting readers to pay doesn’t stack up to real-world scrutiny.

It’s quite possible Donald Trump’s return to the White House and the horrifying riots that spread across the UK in the summer have one thing in common — and, no, I’m not talking about both benefiting from a flow of disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Both moments, huge news events in their own right, show clearly that journalism — the art of crafting reliable, accurate information for people — isn’t as important to huge swathes of the public as we journalists think it should be.

But it could be — if only we reassess our relationships with readers.

Journalism has to thrive to have healthy societies, but to survive it needs to find its place in that society. And readers will choose that place.

Media bubble

A good place to start is to ask ourselves why we are here. If it’s to make sure that journalism is as relevant to as many people as possible, in as many ways as possible, we need to recognise that journalism isn’t just for “people like us” — those most likely to reach for their wallet when offered the prospect of quality journalism, tailored to our interests.

Brexit, the 2019 Conservative party victory, the prevalence of Covid “theories” and Trump’s success in both 2016 and 2024 are all moments that left much of mainstream media scratching its head. But all are proof that the media bubble we spend so much time in isn’t reflective of the real world.

And, too often, we end up demonising people for their actions. I’ve lost count of the number of times that (clever) friends who voted for Brexit or Boris Johnson lamented feeling patronised by those with differing views and pushed to one side by large parts of the media. It’s not because they are stupid; it’s because they are getting information from other places and drawing their own conclusions from it.

‘Because we say so’

That’s why arguing journalism’s future sits with expecting readers to pay doesn’t stack up to real-world scrutiny. Sure, you’ll convert the super-fans and passionate advocates, but what about everyone else? What are they going to do and where are they going to go?

Somehow, in July, the death of three little girls in Southport led to a wave of anti-immigration and — let’s be frank — racist violence around the UK. Not only did this happen despite the best efforts of media national and local to report real context, journalists on the ground as riots unfolded were abused, attacked and intentionally targeted by the angry mob.

In a world where around 85% of people in the UK read local news every month, it seems fair to assume some of those involved do read mainstream news. Comments on social media or emails to editors would back that up.

But we have to stop assuming that, just because we say it, readers take it at face value. They clearly don’t. And that’s where our relationship should start. What are people interested in? Deliver that and then a relationship can form.

‘Frivolous’ content

Back to the London media bubble.

I’m used to the digs about what media professionals consider clickbait or frivolous journalism. But here’s the thing — what tends to be presented as frivolous also tends to be popular.

It should always meet standards required of journalism, but if readers want to spend time reading about Mrs Brown’s Boys, Gogglebox or football transfer rumours, let’s make ourselves relevant by doing that. And let’s respect audiences enough to remember that you can be interested in a range of things.

Our data tells us that people do move between “hard news” and lifestyle content. We should celebrate this, rather than wring our hands about it. Coronation Street spoilers leading readers of the Liverpool Echo to discover a piece of insightful political investigation by Liam Thorp? I see it in our data every week.

It’s not as if misjudging the public mood is a new thing. When the crossword was first invented — and the first UK crossword was published a century ago in the Sunday Express — The Times ran an editorial entitled: “An enslaved nation.” It wasn’t alone.

In 2024, those loud voices who condemn the decline of local journalism, arguing it is being lost amid a sea of “generic content” on local news websites, don’t realise they aren’t typical readers. They aren’t the people  using those brands the way regular readers do — via homepages, newsletters, direct messaging and so on.

The title that faced perhaps the greatest amount of this type of trash talk is the Manchester Evening News, both credible and well-respected, with a host of campaigns and investigations under its belt, but guilty of also being popular. It scaled fabulous heights for reach when riding the Facebook wave. And when that wave went away, guess what happened to the local audience reach? It didn’t move — still being read by every other person you see on Deansgate.

Waning impact

So we find ourselves at a paradoxical moment. Our journalism is seen by more people than ever before, yet our sense is the impact it has is on the wane. I suspect we’ve always overstated the power of journalism to make people’s minds up for them — it’s more about the fact that people have access to a wider range of information sources.

And that’s how we have to approach journalism. Finding ways to be relevant in people’s lives on their terms, opening the door to being able to share journalism that helps inform their views. Sharing, not telling. Inspiring, not just informing.

The brilliant futurologist Amy Webb told the Online News Association conference in 2019 that publishers in the US aren’t just competing with each other for subscription dollars, but with gaming services and Peloton — then a novelty — for less than $40 a month on average.

In the UK, the reality is that many communities have large populations who aren’t debating whether to subscribe to news, be it local or national, over their preferred exercise membership, but whether to heat their homes or have a third meal that day.

That’s the world journalism needs to find its place in, if it is to have a relevance for the future that we hope it had in the past. As Trump has now shown twice, the relationship between media and audiences is fragile and open to being overruled by loud voices with powerful messages.

Telling people they can get the truth only if they pay for it is only going to make the polarisation we feel on both sides of the Atlantic, and the risk of ill-informed resentment taking society to a much darker place, all the more likely.

That’s why free-to-access news and information, that is reliable and trusted, is so important. This sort of bedrock journalism is worth fighting for, even if it means dealing with challenges around user experience and ad load and ever-moving tech platform algorithms.

While I understand the notion of shouting “it’s quality, but it costs” is exciting and freeing for those shouting it, what happens when no-one is really listening? That’s when we surely stop being mainstream and, therefore, relevant.

David Higgerson is chief digital publisher at Reach