More young Americans than we thought might be reading news reports each day. Furthermore, minor changes in social network features could influence how consumers of all ages process the information they see.

Still, we’ll need more evidence—especially about why young people look at the news—before we can determine if any of these communication dynamics affect belief in the civic duty to keep informed (see Sept. 4 post).

Teen news engagement

Research from Northwestern University, announced Sept. 6, reported that 29% of U.S. teens said they saw news reports daily. The percentage climbed into the 40s for weekly news engagement.

“Older teens (16 to 17 years old) showed slightly higher engagement levels than younger teens (13 to 15 years old),” said a news release from Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications. “This finding may seem logical given that the college application process and eligibility to vote may trigger increased interest in national events.”

The reference to voting got my attention. Past communication research has shown that voting-age adults felt obligated to keep up with current affairs. Citizens said they needed to know what was happening so they could be informed voters (civic duty to keep informed).

The Northwestern survey didn’t appear to ask teens way they looked at news items daily or weekly. Therefore, we can’t tell if they were motivated by a similar civic duty to keep informed.

Nevertheless, the Northwestern news engagement results for young Americans appeared more optimistic than what we saw in the June 2023 Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute at Oxford University (see Sept. 4 post). That study said that only 49% of Americans overall were interested in news. “Self-declared interest in news is lower amongst women and younger people, with the falls often greatest in countries characterised by high levels of political polarization,” the report said (p. 21).

“The (Northwestern) survey found more engagement with news among teens than we were expecting,” said Stephanie Edgerly, associate dean for research at Northwestern’s Medill School, in the online news release. “We found that 29% of teens said they encounter news daily. That’s encouraging.”

The Northwestern research reported that 46% of teens saw local TV news daily or weekly and that 42% encountered national network TV news daily or weekly. About a third of the teens surveyed said they engaged with news on YouTube (37%), TikTok (35%), or Instagram (33%) daily or weekly, although the sources of that news were not known.

Only 5% of teens said they encountered news daily through local or national newspapers. The numbers were higher for weekly news encounters in local newspapers (18%) and national newspapers (13%).

Classroom assignments may have contributed to teen news engagement. Three-quarters (75%) of the teens surveyed said they discussed news stories in school classes, and 62% followed the news as part of a class assignment. Another 59% said they discussed how to tell whether information could be trusted.

“This survey provides a snapshot of how U.S. teens are engaging with news, and we don’t often get data this level of detail from a large national sample of U.S. teens,” Edgerly said in the online release. “It’s great in helping clarify trends.”

Social media dynamics

Because more than one-third of teens encountered news through online social networks, I noted two additional studies, reported Sept. 11 by Newman Lab. These two studies indicated that seemingly simple changes to social media features could affect user opinions and news dissemination. Such factors, therefore, might play some role in teen news engagement as well.

One study showed that online endorsements, such as likes and retweets, influenced people’s opinions of policies related to COVID-19. Participants in an experiment saw two versions of a social media post about tensions between economic activity and public health. Those who viewed pro-economy posts with a high number of likes were less likely to favor pandemic-related restrictions, such as banning gatherings. Those who viewed pro-public health posts with a high number of likes were more likely to favor restrictions. The experiment involved participants from the United States, Italy, and Ireland.

The other study examined how a change to Twitter’s retweet policy a few weeks before the 2020 presidential election affected news dissemination. The change encouraged users to add their own commentary when they retweeted information. Twitter hoped the change would prompt users to reflect on the content they were sharing and slow the spread of misinformation.

The result, according to the study, was a drop in retweets on average across several U.S. news outlets by more than 15%. The average drop in retweets for “liberal” outlets was more than 20%, but the drop for “conservative” outlets was only 5%. Furthermore, the Twitter policy appeared to affect visits to news websites. That change suggested that the new policy had influenced news dissemination overall.

Instagram, Threads, and X (formerly Twitter) now allow some users to hide the number of likes on posts, the Newman Lab item said. As a result, author Juan S. Morales, assistant professor of economics at Wilfrid Laurier University, speculated those changes could affect political discourse on social networks.

No information on teen motivations

The idea that more young Americans than we expected are regularly seeing news reports is encouraging. I’m glad to see that schools are requiring teens to read news stories and are helping students judge the credibility of reports. I’m intrigued by how characteristics of the social media environment can affect the way people process information they see.

We still don’t know, however, why teens engage with news—other than to complete class assignments. Consequently, we can’t determine whether young people today recognize the same civic duty to keep informed that earlier generations reported. We may not be able to assume, therefore, the same connections between news consumption, public opinion formation, and voting behavior that we once did.

The relationship between news engagement, public opinion, and electoral behavior remains a fertile field for research—especially in today’s vibrant communication landscape and polarized political environment.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

Recent research indicates that belief among Americans in the civic duty to keep informed continues to fade.

Mass communication research from 1982 to 2000 analyzed the civic duty to keep informed among Americans. Studies consistently showed that voting-age adults felt obligated to keep up with current affairs. Citizens said they needed to know what was happening so they could be informed voters. Highly educated people usually felt a stronger duty to stay informed than those with lower education levels. Adults sought out civic information from print, broadcast, and online news organizations.

The 2023 results from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism show much less interest among Americans in keeping up with the news than earlier researchers identified. The 2023 results support findings from a 2014 study I did among Virginia Tech students. That limited analysis, published in 2017 in the Newspaper Research Journal, determined that millennials didn’t recognize a duty to keep up with political news the way earlier generations did. The young people born at the end of the 20th century indicated no clear commitment to keeping up with civic or political events—even though more than half the people in my survey said they saw news reports at least six days a week.

Interest in news drops

The 12th edition of the Digital News Report, released in June by the Reuters Institute at Oxford University, showed that only 49% of Americans in 2023 said they were interested in news. That percentage was 18 points lower than in 2015, the year after my study.

Reuters researchers found that 12% of Americans in 2023 said they had not looked at any news reports in the past week. That news engagement level was much lower than I identified in my research. Reuters said interest in news in 2023 was lowest among women and young people.

“In the United States, we find that consumers are more likely to avoid subjects such as national politics and social justice, where debates over issues such as gender, sexuality, and race have become highly politicised,” the Reuters study said.

An Aug. 1 Washington Post article about the Reuters findings used Claudia Caplin to illustrate the change in news consumption. The retired advertising executive used to read two newspapers each morning, watch television news in the afternoon or evening, and listen to NPR programs during trips in her car.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, she began to consume less news, the Post story said. She reportedly found news coverage too “apocalyptic.”

“I’ve always felt I had a responsibility to know everything,” she told the Post. “I don’t feel that way anymore.”

Caplin’s quotation summarizes the apparent change in the civic duty to keep informed.

Reasons for the change unclear

I don’t know—and neither do other researchers—exactly why people no longer feel obligated to stay informed. The 2023 Reuters report, which gathered data from six continents and 46 markets, identified several possible factors:

• Relying on social networks rather than traditional news organizations for information.
• Low trust in an ever-expanding array of online information sources.
• Lack of interest in what many news sources report.
• Rising costs for news content reported by working journalists.

“When it comes to news,” the Reuters report said, “audiences say they pay more attention to celebrities, influencers, and social media personalities than journalists in networks like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. This contrasts sharply with Facebook and Twitter, where news media and journalists are still central to the conversation.”

Many people were skeptical of algorithms used to select what they saw via search engines, social networks, and other platforms, the Reuters report said. Nevertheless, users still slightly preferred news selected by algorithms to content chosen by editors.

Another factor, according to Rasmus Kleis Nielsen, the Reuters Institute’s director (quoted in the Post story), could be that publishers focus on consumers willing to pay for news content. Consequently, news organizations report stories intended to attract “politically interested” readers. That focus drives away politically disconnected individuals.

Assumptions questioned

Two assumptions of civic-duty research were that citizens with a strong sense of civic duty to keep informed would (1) seek out information from news media about issues facing the government and (2) be more likely to vote than those who do not accept such a duty.

With fewer people today interested in news reports, the first assumption may no longer be valid. I’ve already questioned whether—as the Libertarian press theory maintains—we can count on news consumers to seek out information on all sides of a topic (see July 21 post about press theories).

The second assumption may be debatable as well. Public opinion polls and academic research on voter participation often offer contradictory information.

Some reports say issues, such as abortion, drive increased voter participation—especially among women and young voters. Gallup reported July 23 that women and men hold similar views on the legality of abortion at each stage of pregnancy. Overall, Gallup reported that a record-high 69% of Americans said abortion should generally be legal in the first three months of pregnancy and that 34% said abortion should be legal in all cases.

Pew Research reported July 12 that women voted more for Republican candidates than Democrats in the 2020 and 2022 elections. GOP candidates tend to oppose access to abortions.

Pew reported that voters 50 and older accounted for a larger share of the total electorate in 2022 (64%) than in the past three elections. The share of voters 18 to 29 went from 11% in 2018 to 14% in 2020 and 10% in 2022.

Other sources said that multiple factors—income, racial segregation, education level, political polarization, and the work of nonprofits—determined civic and political engagement among young people. In communities where young adults volunteered, helped their neighbors, and belonged to groups or associations, people in that age group voted.

Thinking may need to change

The 2023 Reuters results raise a crucial question about potential voters today: How can the 51% of Americans not interested in news find credible information to inform their choices at the ballot box?

Traditional democratic theory—what I learned during high school civics in the late 1960s—lists variables that increase citizen engagement in democratic systems. Freedom of information about government functions and openness by public officials about their plans were influential factors. Political candidates who avoided public scrutiny could mislead uninformed voters.

If Americans today don’t see their role as news consumers the way that people in my generation were taught to expect, we may need to adjust our thinking about how news consumption influences voting.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

The recent controversy over federal efforts to prevent misinformation on social networks provides another opportunity to ponder how press theories can help us understand today’s media environment.

Opinions about who’s right and wrong in the case from New Orleans appear linked to whether Libertarian or Social Responsibility press theory guides how people view the situation. I outlined those theories in a July 15 post.

The New Orleans case first made news July 4 when U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty (Western District of Louisiana) blocked federal officials from trying to influence social media companies to suppress posts that the government considered misinformation. Topics for potential misinformation mentioned in the underlying lawsuit included public health, election integrity, and federal probes into actions by President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Doughty’s ruling July 14 and called for expedited arguments in the case. In 2022, attorneys general from Louisiana and Missouri filed the legal action that led to July 4 injunction. The 2022 lawsuit claimed the federal government had censored free speech by discussing possible regulatory action against companies like Meta, Twitter, and Google if they didn’t remove what officials deemed misinformation.

Some Libertarian commentators hailed Doughty’s injunction as a victory for free speech and a blow to government censorship.

The Chicago Tribune, for example, editorialized July 7 that the federal government shouldn’t be censoring what Americans said on social networks. The newspaper said:

“Even now, having groups of advocates that pressure social media channels to remove what they see as damaging information is perfectly reasonable. Those groups are expressing their own rights to free speech and, as private entities, the social media channels can and should have their own rules on what they do and do not permit. …

“But that’s not what this case is about. The problem came up when the Biden administration opened up a back channel to sympathetic senior employees at Twitter. White House operatives openly pointed out problematic posts that they wanted taken down. …

“A private individual can attempt to do that. A government official should not. So says our Constitution.”

In classic Libertarian-theory language, the Tribune said: “In a free society, people have to be able to hear all sides, judge who they think can be trusted for themselves and navigate the free marketplace of ideas. Such is the choice Americans made long ago.” In fact, the newspaper said, the framers of the U.S. Constitution thought that “protecting free expression was, in the long run, the best protection that could be afforded an American.”

The New York Times appeared to view the situation through a Social Responsibility lens. The Times called Doughty’s injunction “a major development in a fierce legal fight over the boundaries and limits of speech online.” The injunction could hurt government “efforts to combat false and misleading narratives.”

Government officials, the Times reported July 4, had said they didn’t have the authority to order posts removed. Nevertheless, federal agencies and social media executives had long worked together to delete illegal or harmful material. These actions often involved child sexual abuse, human trafficking, and other criminal activity. Furthermore, federal officials had regularly shared information with social networks on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups.

The Associated Press reported that social media companies routinely took down posts that violated company standards but were rarely compelled to do so by the U.S. government. Meta, parent of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, for example, restricted access to 27 items that it thought violated U.S. laws during the first six months of 2020. Meta reported no U.S.-specific content restrictions during 2021 or the first six months of 2022.

But Meta announced soon after the July 4 injunction that the company would not moderate discourse on Threads, the Washington Post reported July 14. Instead of corporate monitoring, Meta planned to give individual users greater control over what content they saw and didn’t see. Meta was reportedly already using that strategy—an apparent nod to Libertarian-theory thinking—on Facebook and Instagram.

“I hope over time we’ll have less of a discussion about what our big, crude algorithmic choices are and more about whether you guys feel that the individual controls we’re giving you on Threads feel meaningful to you,” Meta Global Affairs President Nick Clegg said in the Post story.

Several news organizations quoted a White House official using classic Social Responsibility language in response to the July 4 injunction:

“Our consistent view remains that social media platforms have a critical responsibility to take account of the effects their platforms are having on the American people but make independent choices about the information they present.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, appeared to judge the current controversy from a Social Responsibility perspective as well. He told the New York Times July 4 that he didn’t consider what the government was accused of doing censorship.

“It can’t be that the government violates the First Amendment simply by engaging with the platforms about their content-moderation decisions and policies,” Jaffer said. “If that’s what the court is saying here, it’s a pretty radical proposition that isn’t supported by the case law.”

Trying to identify the press theory shaping reactions to the July 4 ruling gives us another way to analyze public discourse and understand why people behave the way they do.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon

I heard a recent NPR promotional message refer to “public service journalism.” I saw an Associated Press story about CBS News using solutions journalism to combat bad news fatigue.

These efforts to specify approaches to news storytelling got my attention. I wondered about the thinking behind them. One thing led to another, and my reflection covered more topics than I expected.

News executives at NPR and CBS are trying to (1) modify how they find and report stories and (2) change the way news consumers perceive what they receive each day on the air. The goal is to rebuild trust in traditional news organizations.

I have no issue with trying to reframe how Americans think about newsgathering. Print and broadcast news organizations—both local and national—have been losing credibility with Americans since the 1970s.

What’s in it for me?

Before an organization can change perceptions, however, it must know what the people it hopes to influence think or want. I have long advised clients—and taught students—to start communication planning by answering the question “What’s in it for me?” for the individuals and groups the organization wanted to influence.

Public service and solutions journalism may, indeed, be an effort to appeal to the self-interests of news consumers. But American journalists may need to consider more fundamental assumptions about their own views of modern society before they try to determine what will interest readers, listeners, or viewers. How do news executives themselves understand:

• The nature of those they want to reach?
• The nature of society?
• The relationship of individuals to the state?
• The nature of knowledge and truth?

These four topics were at the core of a seminal 1956 book that shaped my understanding of journalism: Four Theories of the Press. This text by Fred Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur Schramm was required reading in many journalism schools from the late 1950s through the 1980s.

4 theories of the press

The four press theories are Authoritarian, Libertarian, Social Responsibility, and Soviet. The Libertarian and Social Responsibility theories apply to news media in the United States and some Western European nations. U.S. journalists need to examine which theory is guiding their thinking and whether assumptions underlying that theory still apply to Americans today.

Theories explain and predict behaviors, outcomes, or relationships (How to Build Social Science Theories by Pamela Shoemaker, James W. Tankard Jr., and Dominic Lasorsa, 2004). We all use theories every day to decide how to live. We base our theories on observations, readings, experiences, or experiments. This evidence tells us what to expect from similar situations in the future. Social psychologist Kurt Lewin said in 1943 that nothing was more practical than a good theory. I concur.

Although working U.S. journalists may not recognize which theory they are using, that theory is still influencing what they do.

Libertarian press theory

The Libertarian press theory developed in England during the late 1600s. The theory reflects the thinking of John Milton, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and the philosophy of rationalism and natural rights.

Libertarian theory assumes that humans are rational and have the natural right to determine how they are governed. Humans will actively seek out information in a “free marketplace of ideas” to determine truth and keep track of what political leaders are doing. People individually weigh the facts and can distinguish truth from falsehood. Truth emerges from a “self-righting process,” overcomes falsehood, and becomes self-evident to everyone.

The press—usually privately owned—is a partner in the Libertarian search for truth. The press keeps citizens informed about government actions. The free flow of information allows citizens to keep government power in check.

The Libertarian “free marketplace of ideas” is open to anyone with adequate economic means to patriciate. In the beginning, “adequate means” meant access to a printing press or money to buy publications. Today, people may need only smartphones.

Nothing needs to control what is said or written in a Libertarian system. All people will be able to spot and ignore misinformation. In practice, however, Libertarian systems do limit some content: defamation, obscenity, or similar socially offensive material.

Libertarian thinking influenced America’s Founders and led to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Social Responsibility press theory

The Social Responsibility theory developed in the United States in the early 20th century because of changes in the media landscape. The thinking was distilled in A Free and Responsible Press, the 1947 report of The Commission on Freedom of the Press. The commission was a private group chaired by Robert Hutchins, president of the University of Chicago, and funded by Henry Luce, founder of Time, Life, Sports Illustrated, and Fortune.

The commission assumed different things about humanity and society from Libertarian thinkers. While humans may be rational, they don’t always seek out information from all sides of a question or even see multiple news sources. Therefore, journalists need to help readers, listeners, and viewers find the truth by getting all the facts about an issue into the coverage that those individuals do see.

Furthermore, economic changes by the mid-20th century had limited access to the American marketplace of ideas. Media ownership was consolidated into the hands of a powerful few individuals or corporations. Media moguls resisted government controls on content. But they could limit who had access to the marketplace of ideas.

As a result, the commission maintained, this limited number of information gatekeepers could control the flow of ideas available to citizens and push agendas that would economically benefit corporate interests. That near-monopoly control of media content, the commission said, mandated that news organizations voluntarily operate responsibly for the good of society.

The marketplace of ideas in the Social Responsibility view moved from the minds of rational individuals to the pages and airways of news organizations. Those private operations needed to make sure that the public received all sides of a story and enough information to discover the truth and make wise political decisions. If news organizations didn’t voluntarily act responsibly, the commission warned, some other social force—either public or private—may need to step in to make sure journalists do the right thing.

By the time of the 1947 commission report, Social Responsibility concepts had already influenced the thinking behind the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934. Those laws governed the U.S. broadcast industry. The 1934 act established the Federal Communication Commission.

Consequently, our current media system includes vestiges of both theories. Furthermore, the theories are not mutually exclusive. Libertarians could choose to operate responsibly. They just didn’t have to.

Are theoretical assumptions still valid?

The spread of the Worldwide Web in the 1990s, the growth of social networks in the early 2000s, and the recent rise of mobile applications have drastically changed the media environment since the 1947 Commission on Freedom of the Press report. The media landscape again is much more Libertarian.

Economic barriers to the marketplace of ideas have been reduced. Big media companies compete with individuals on smartphones and computers. Anyone with internet or cellular access can now share information through a mobile application, social network, or website with vast numbers of people. Receivers don’t usually have to pay to see that information, either.

But are Libertarian assumptions still valid? Will humans seek out information on all sides of a question? Can they distinguish truth from falsehood? Do they look to news organizations to provide the information that citizens need to check government power?

What about Social Responsibility assumptions? Do news organizations need to include all sides of a story to help news consumers determine the truth? Do readers, listeners, and viewers want to see multiple viewpoints in their news coverage? Should news reports go beyond basic facts (which are supposed to let readers, listeners, or viewers make up their own minds)? Should content help people analyze social issues or political questions and consider solutions? Do news consumers expect the press to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable? Should journalists devote so much effort to reporting on political issues, government actions, or community problems?

Applying the theories today

Serving the public interest or offering ways to address social problems—approaches represented by the NPR and CBS journalism labels—appears to reflect Social Responsibility thinking and the assumptions about news consumers behind that theory.

Journalists are in privileged positions. They have unfettered access to the marketplace of ideas. Consequently, these reporters have a responsibility to look beyond the basic who, what, when, where, and why of a story to see how they can help citizens find truth and contribute to a better society. The Social Responsibility theory would predict that news consumers would respect that approach, appreciate the utilitarian reporting, and use the content to make informed decisions about government.

The modern, more Libertarian, media landscape, however, has diminished the influence of traditional news organizations. People can easily hear other voices—if those individuals are willing to seek out various viewpoints. News consumers determine for themselves what content is most appealing and credible.

Research, however, repeatedly indicates that Americans live in partisan echo chambers. Party affiliation often determines which news sources people use, what they see as truth, and whether they will continue subscribing. An award-winning research paper slated for presentation at the August 2023 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication conference found, among other things, that if news content didn’t continually gratify consumers, they were not likely to continue subscribing to a news service (another example of “what’s in it for me?” as well as uses and gratification theory—another topic).

NPR and CBS, by the way, are trusted more by liberals than conservatives, according to Pew Research.

The continuing perception—promoted by some journalists and by many media critics—that traditional news organizations have uncontrolled power to influence public opinion—may further weaken any efforts to be seen as trustworthy. The Gallup Organization reported July 6 that faith in U.S. institutions—including newspapers and television news—was near historic lows. Only 18% of Americans had a great deal or fair amount of faith in newspapers. Only 14% had similar faith in TV news. The all-time low for newspapers was 16% and for television news was 11%. Both low points were reached in 2022.

I have no magic solutions for building trust in news organizations. I don’t want to discourage news executives from finding new ways to appeal to readers, listeners, or viewers. I support thorough reporting. Presenting all sides of a story is the socially responsible thing to do—and should be acceptable to Libertarians as well.

But I recognize that confronting people with ideas they oppose—especially in today’s partisan environment—may not be the best way to attract new subscribers or build trust. What socially responsible journalists might call broad, balanced reporting might not please news consumers who hold certain political opinions and could simply be rejected as “fake news.”

Nevertheless, how you understand the current media landscape, the nature of news consumers, the social role of journalists, and the best way to develop news content depends on which theory you think describes the American press system.

Copyright © 2023 Douglas F. Cannon