Three out of four media executives worldwide plan to try to get their newsrooms to “behave more like creators” during 2026, according to a recent report from Reuters Institute. Half want to collaborate with them; one-third want to hire them. Almost as many are considering starting their own creator studios. 

“News creators” has become a buzzword. But just like many other buzzwords, there is a reason for its popularity: 37% of young American adults say they regularly get their news from digital influencers on social media.

While much of the data is U.S.-centric, these core trends are rapidly accelerating across every global market. And they are likely to become stronger still: When AI companies repurpose our content and publish it on their own platforms, the human element — the newsrooms’ identifiable voices — emerges as a strong competitive advantage.

Simultaneously, the advancement of AI itself can contribute to a deeper thirst for that human element.

The question then is, does this really work? Or are we trying to squeeze journalism into a format it wasn’t built for? 

Creators vs. credibility

The creator economy is built on speed, personality, and, to some extent, entertainment value. Journalism (at its best) is built on relevance, objectivity, and credibility. 

It’s not always a perfect match. Research from Schibsted’s IN/LAB  shows creators build trust by appearing genuine, accessible, and sharing personal experiences. Traditional media, on the other hand, comes across as polished and professional with a relatively neutral tone, but this can also feel distant or impersonal.

Hence, for the media to succeed in its mission to connect with younger audiences, it doesn’t just require a few new formats; it requires a fundamental shift in how news organisations view their identity and audience.

This also applies to how they view their own employees. Only 39% of the executives in the Reuters study see losing editorial talent to the creator world as a risk. That number should probably be higher.

A year ago, a group of very engaged young people from the media house Fanzingo visited the Aftonbladet newsroom. After we showed them how we work, I asked, “How many of you want to become a journalist?”

No one raised a hand. There are other ways to express yourself and influence, one of them said.

Creators build their own brands, often with a platform backing them. Total freedom prevails. Journalists, on the other hand, are expected to be loyal to a newsroom, its ideals, and its professional rules of the game — and to maintain objectivity in all public contexts.

Many in the new generation of creators are more interested in control, reach, and freedom than in being cogs in an anonymous content machine. Platforms like Substack are bringing in new venture capital, giving them larger war chests for new recruits.

So the question becomes: Should we tame creators, or collaborate with them?

Perhaps the answer is neither. 

Creating a new space

The most exciting experiments we are seeing right now are not about copying or recruiting creators but about creating space for their strengths within the framework of journalism.

This can mean allowing profiles to grow without losing brand identity, daring to experiment with new storytelling forms, or building a team where personality is not a threat to credibility but rather strengthens it.

This strategic shift is urgent because the traditional approach is, apparently, actively alienating potential audiences. We often refer to them as “news avoiders,” but a more accurate term would be “news site avoiders.”

When they describe why they opt out, they cite not a lack of interest in the world but an aversion to a news environment they perceive as constantly negative, emotionally draining, and irrelevant to their daily lives.

For years, news sites have been optimised based on traffic metrics for their existing, typically older and male, audience. This optimisation creates an editorial culture that alienates younger people and women. 

The solution isn’t just about adding a few creators or journalists who act like them. Hiring one person who tries to build relationships in one place (usually social media) while the rest of the newsroom continues to see the audience as (again, at best) mere metrics will hardly shift your brand.

Instead, it would probably just become confusing if younger people see a type of content and tone they like — and then go to a site where everything looks completely different, with content that feels distant and irrelevant.

What’s required is a shift in how we view the relationship between platform, audience, and the editorial mission. And that may be the most difficult transformation of all.

So how do we achieve that?

By thinking in terms of relationships, not reach.

The platform is where the relationship is built; the audience is not a passive recipient but an active participant that reacts and drives things forward. The journalistic mission must be more than conveying information; it must engage, explain, and deepen understanding.

This shift is not cosmetic. It is highly strategic. We should give editorial teams greater autonomy, embedding experimentation into the organisation, but most importantly, accept that the journalist’s role is changing from a sender of information to a credible guide in a noisy information flow.

Banner photo: Reuters Institute.

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