Visit any panel discussion about the future of news, or read an op-ed about how to engage readers in the digital age, and the word “personalisation” is bound to come up. This trend is far from new; personalisation has been the name of the game since the mobile revolution put content in everyone’s hands.

But what’s really possible when it comes to personalising news content? Is it good for business? What about society at large? Let’s explore.

The possibilities of personalised news

In the face of declining revenues and shrinking search traffic, publishers are keen on innovative ways to pad the bottom line. Enter personalisation.

Delivering personalised news feeds is not only a great way to engage audiences but also allows publishers to serve more targeted ads at higher CPMs (cost per 1,000 impressions). But what does a personalised experience on a Web site or in an app really look like?

After a visit to the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) in 2025, Dak Dillon reported for News Cast Studio: “Dynamic paywalls adjust subscription offers based on reader behaviour. E-mail newsletters adapt to reading preferences. Even content bundles can be tailoured to different audience segments. These product reconfigurations have shown promising results, with many outlets reporting higher conversion rates and deeper audience relationships.”

A key concept here is that of “liquifying” news. Liquified news can be presented in multiple formats to suit the reader:

Publishers are deploying Artificial Intelligence (AI) voice assistants to deliver audio briefings. The same story may change format based on user preferences. There might even be the extreme option of “choose your own adventure” news stories.

A Columbia Journalism Review describes a Virtual Reality (VR) experience in which “ ... a VR rendition of a protest on raising the minimum wage could allow a participant to choose to follow those marching in favour or decide to stand with those against reform.”

What’s possible in the realm of personalisation is rapidly expanding as AI works its way into more aspects of the newsroom. And this technology makes even the basics of personalisation more accessible to media outlets of all sizes.

As Press Gazette’s Paul Hood put it, “Ever noticed how YouTube and TikTok always seem to know what you’d like to watch next? That’s AI at work. Publishers can use the same magic to recommend stories, videos, or podcasts based on what readers have previously enjoyed.”

This example underscores the expectation that audiences want the platforms they engage with to get to know them and serve them the content they love.

Nevertheless, when it come to news, consumers are wary: Reuters Institute research found that, while most respondents are happy with the personalisation of music, weather, or television suggestions, only half as many are comfortable with news personalisation.

Losing the common ground

Personalised content may make business sense for media companies, but it’s hard not to ask questions about the core mission of journalism and the ethics of perpetuating the echo chamber effect that’s already taken hold on so many social media platforms.

Dillon noted: “The same algorithms that can enhance reader experience also risk undermining journalism’s core social function. When everyone sees a different version of reality through their personalised news feeds, we lose the common ground necessary for democratic discourse.”

For struggling newsrooms, however, personalisation may be the difference between being able to pursue “the core mission of journalism” and shutting the doors.

Press Gazette reported German news magazine EXPRESS.de introduced a system called Klara Indernach (KI), which has “has led to a 50% to 80% increase in click-through rates when AI curates articles based on user interests.”

Publishers can also adapt content on the fly in ways that would be nearly unimaginable without the help of AI.

“Let’s say you’re scrolling through your phone during a quick lunch break. AI might deliver a short, snappy summary of an article. But if you’re on a desktop with time to spare, it could serve up a full-length deep dive on the same topic,” Hood wrote in the Press Gazette piece.

This allows publishers to finally deliver on the promise of delivering the right content in the right format at the right time to the right person.

AI also makes it possible for publishers to analyse behavioural patterns, ultimately anticipating what individuals will be interested in next. Depending on who you ask, applying the same algorithms that keep people scrolling through TikTok to real news may not be all it’s cracked up to be.

“When combined with engagement-driven recommendation systems that favour sensational content, personalisation can become a breeding ground for misinformation,” Dillon said.

Striking the right balance with personalisation

So, in addition to potentially building readership for beleaguered publishers, the technique of news personalisation also raises ethical questions.

Back in 2024, Laura Gartry tackled this tricky topic for Reuters Institute: “This discrepancy raises the question: if users are increasingly exposed to content that aligns with their existing views and interests, how can we ensure that important, albeit less popular, stories reach a wide audience? More broadly: How do we balance technological advancement with journalistic integrity and user trust?”

After evaluating the evidence, Gartry found news recommendations improved content discovery, keeping readers longer and reducing exposure to third parties, ultimately enhancing financial stability for public interest journalism. These benefits, however, need to be weighed against the risk of reinforcing readers’ blind spots and biases.

The key seems to be to balance algorithmic suggestions with human-curated content.

A good example is the Canadian daily Globe and Mail. Despite an almost entirely algorithm-driven Web site, “The top three slots on the Globe and Mail’s home page are always chosen by editors to highlight the most important stories, reflecting the newspaper’s role in setting the national agenda,” Gartry said.

Outside the comfort zone

Reuters’ research also found users say they value localised recommendations. Additionally, there is a perception that automated suggestions are less biased, and they value the delivery of “more varied topics and viewpoints.”

In other words, consumers value relevance, but smart news organisations may want to ensure their algorithms and editors challenge viewers with something outside their comfort zone.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .