Do you find yourself reading fewer news stories than you used to? If so, it’s not just you. There’s a national trend showing the level of news consumption has dropped among all age groups. Pew Research did an analysis of adults in the U.S. who are decreasing the amount of news content in their information diet.
In 2016, adults who follow the news “all or most of the time” was about 51 percent. It peaked in 2018 at 52 percent and then started dropping year after year to 38 percent in 2022.
Even when age groups are broken up into segments, there’s still a steep drop. For example:
65+: 75 percent in 2016 to 64 percent in 2022
50-64: 61 percent in 2016 to 46 percent in 2022
30-49: 46 percent in 2016 to 27 percent in 2022
18-29: 27 percent in 2016 to 19 percent in 2022
Those who identify with two of the major political parties, or lean toward them, also saw declines:
Republican (or lean toward): 57 percent in 2016 to 37 percent in 2022
Democrats (or lean toward): 49 percent in 2016 to 42 percent in 2022
Looking at the numbers can give the impression that there are a lot more uninformed people in the U.S. That’s one takeaway. Another could be the way in which news is framed to get people hooked. A barrage of reporting on wars, urban doom loops, mass shootings, a former president in legal trouble, government corruption, climate catastrophes, immigration, inflation, real estate prices, homelessness, and car thefts tend to dominate the news. That’s because bad news supposedly sells – and our brains are wired in such a way to be attracted to negative stories.
However, in Economics 101, there’s the law of diminishing returns. Yes, bad news gets clicks, but if news outlets keep increasing one factor (i.e., the stories that get clicks or views) while keeping other stories at steady-state levels, you’re going to see a drop in consumption. While the reasons for this involve more than one factor, there is a trend in the research that shows where most people prefer getting their news. That source is television (33 percent). However, while most people prefer getting news from their TVs, they tend to receive news stories from their phones, tablets, or computers (49 percent).
If you have your notifications enabled on your phone, tablet, or computer, you know what that’s like. Add to that, texts, social media pings, calls, and emails, and you can see why (in part) news consumption is declining. The notification factor is increasing to the point where people are tuning out (probably for their own sanity).
All this poses a challenge for those who work in the media and PR. How do you get your message out when people are signaling they want less news content?
Two thoughts: 1. Report on problems as well as solutions to those problems. Too often, headlines like “Energy Department Pours Billions into Power Grids but Warns It’s Not Enough” in the New York Times can feel so doom and gloom that it can give rise to feelings of hopelessness. Yet, in the middle and latter part of the article (yes, it’s a real article), there are some solutions that the federal government is trying — and there’s technology that can boost power transmission without expensive upgrades. Now that’s interesting. Moreover, it also doesn’t feel hopeless to read about solutions. So, with that bit of information, what if the headline read, “Technological Innovations and Novel Government Policies Offer Possible Path to Future Clean Energy Needs.” Would that get clicks? It’s possible because it’s not a doom and gloom story, but rather a problem/solution story that news editors have published at lower levels. If you’re experiencing the law of diminishing returns for doom and gloom stories, try adding more problem/solution factors into the mix.
Thought number 2: Explain why things are the way they are. For example, The New York Times (you can tell I’m a Times subscriber, right?) has a piece on why we change from daylight saving to standard time. Was it Ben Franklin’s fault? Farmers? Sun times? Railroad companies? Energy savings? If you read the article, you’ll find that, yes, Ben Franklin wanted more daylight partly to save on the cost of candles. You’ll also find that, no, farmers aren’t to blame. What about energy savings? There’s something to that, but are we really saving a lot? You can read it for yourself, but the article is a good “how did we get here” piece that’s timely (ha!) and does offer a solution to this problem. It should be noted that time changes are a problem since the disruption in sleep cycles can lead to an increased risk of stroke, heart attack, and vehicle crashes.
“That’s the news, so now you know.” — Gil Haar
