A common critique we hear from young groups we work with at IN/LAB (an innovation lab dedicated to inclusion funded by Schibsted Media and the Tinius Trust) is that the news media lacks diverse perspectives.

They often express a need for a greater variety of viewpoints and experiences, including perspectives challenging their own views. To better understand this topic, we conducted a study that led to our recently published report, News Perspectives.

In the report, we examine how diverse perspectives are perceived, valued, and accessed by younger (18-25 years old) and older (50-65 years old) groups, and their expectations on the news media. Our insights are based on in-depth interviews, guerilla research, and desktop research conducted in Sweden.

We also collaborated with the news organisations Yle and The Daily Maverick, which provided additional insights from workshops in Finland and South Africa.

Expectations on media as a bridge builder

One particularly interesting finding from the Swedish research suggests a possible tension between younger generations and the news media. It describes how younger respondents think news media should act as connectors between different perspectives, which should contribute to reducing polarisation and fragmentation.

They expect the media to bridge societal divides by actively engaging with different communities and bringing underrepresented voices into mainstream narratives.

One of the young adults I talked to described her experience this way: “I feel a bit sad that social media will have such a huge place in the world in the future … It’s a powerful tool for polarization … The tolerance for other perspectives will decrease.”

She believed the news media could potentially counteract this.

We hear similar thoughts in other conversations with young people, such as in discussions about personalisation of news consumption. They want to be able to choose what topics and formats they engage with, sometimes even shaping their experience through direct interaction with an algorithm.

Many of them describe how they try to curate their social media feeds by prompting algorithms through likes, shares, and views. For them, personalisation does not only mean getting content that fits their interests. It is also about exposure to challenging perspectives and breaking free from perceived filter bubbles.

A more advanced form of personalisation would therefore account for their desire to be challenged, not just catered to.

A response to a polarised world

One potential reason for the “bridge builder” expectation is that younger generations are growing up in an increasingly volatile, uncertain, and complex world. They are concerned that increasing, and often algorithm-driven, fragmentation of the information landscape is exacerbating conflict and polarisation in society.

Their suggested antidote to polarisation is spelled empathy. Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes is a skill that can be cultivated, like exercising or eating healthily. It helps you practise understanding toward people who behave or think differently from you.

This way, the young respondents argue, they challenge their own biases and prejudices, and approach the world more inclusively. And, they believe the media should support them.

“If you have empathy and make sure to understand yourself and others, there would be a lot less conflict,” one person said.

Some editorial media already see themselves as bridge builders, and they have been for quite some time.

The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang (VG), for instance, stated in its articles of association from 1945 that its role is to “bridge divisions in society and to mitigate political conflict that is not rooted in ideological differences.”

However, there might be a discrepancy between how the news media perceive their role and how audiences experience it.

A unifying force or another divisive platform

The bridge-builder role could play out in many different ways for the news media.

In one scenario, they could be seen by the public as a unifying force in times of conflict and uncertainty. People would trust news organisations to not only deliver facts, but also contribute to a more nuanced understanding by making diverse perspectives accessible. Journalists would be viewed as credible facilitators of dialogue.

This might increase engagement among younger groups, particularly if they see media outlets are making a genuine effort to check their own biases and include underrepresented perspectives.

Another scenario is that news organisations are perceived as activists that take a stand for the perspectives they present, damaging their credibility among audiences. The media might be criticised for not including enough perspectives or for not selecting the most important ones.

There is also the general challenge of homogeneity, or lack of diversity, in today’s newsrooms, which makes it especially difficult to identify and access some potentially relevant perspectives on certain topics and stories.

Given the media’s tendency toward conflict-driven narratives, there is also a risk that attempts to bridge perspectives could instead devolve into just another platform for polarised debate, achieving the opposite of their intended purpose.

Reflecting on the media’s future role

So, what does this mean for news organisations?

These insights touch on some fundamental questions about the media’s role in society. If news organisations were to act on this wish from younger generations, it could influence their processes, product, and content, but also how they position themselves as a brand.

We suggest news organisations begin by reflecting on their current role. To what extent are they acting as bridge builders between perspectives today? Is this a role they want to embrace more actively? And, if not, are there other ways of addressing expectations around diverse perspectives from younger groups?

We believe news organisations should take these questions as a starting point for discussion and use them to navigate the relationship with the next generation of news consumers.

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