Alan Hunter, co-founder of HBM Advisory and former head of digital at The Times of London, writes: “(Journalism) is delivered in different mediums, of course, but fundamentally the output is the same as it was 50 years ago. As practised by journalists, it hasn’t really adapted to the new platforms where it is now available, nor responded to our greater knowledge of what readers really want.”

I agree with that assessment, contained in two lengthy pieces Hunter recently published on LinkedIn titled:

• A New Journalism: part one.

• A New Journalism: part two.

I spent time with those pieces to glean some interesting takeaways:

“Being brutal, the content we are producing today is not engaging people — and especially not young people.”

Hunter points out that media organisations may be surprised at how few articles readers or subscribers consume per week and month. It’s true — I have long believed we simply aren’t providing the news many consumers want or giving it in the formats they want. 

This is where data comes in. If we’re brutally honest, metrics will tell us what’s working and what isn’t. 

“Be user-first,” Hunter says. “Journalism will only continue to be relevant if it is ruthlessly and unequivocally focused on what users — they are no longer just readers, but watchers and listeners, too — want from it.”

“In short, I believe every newsroom should put up a big sign saying: ‘You are not your readers.’” 

I love this quote from his piece: “We need to remember that most consumers are not as obsessed with the news as we are and that we have many fewer opportunities to offer them something valuable than we acknowledge. If we do this, it would be a great start to forging a new journalism.” 

This is absolutely true, and if we’d adopt this mindset, how would our content differ? Would we cover things differently? Better provide context in our stories? I have to believe we would.

“We’re still doing print journalism in a digital world.”

Hunter argues we’re continuing to value quantity over quality (the idea of “filling the paper”), and stories are written the same way they always have been. 

“The products being offered to readers are still mostly print-made-digital in genesis and execution,” he writes. 

I would urge every media organisation to get serious about alternative story formats and to measure their success. He argues the same: “Lean into telling stories in new formats and using new technologies.”

“It is astonishing how resistant journalism has been to data.”

Hunter’s experience includes working with newsrooms that challenge the data or say the mission supersedes what the data shows. 

“My simplest argument on this subject is that the data is your readers,” Hunter writes. “Never have we known so much about what our readers actually want to read and how long they are prepared to read it. This is a blessing and we should embrace it further.” 

I’ve been surprised how long it’s taken many media companies to embrace data — both for what it can tell us about what readers want and what it can tell us about things we should stop doing. 

“No wonder we don’t get the engagement we think we deserve. We are disrespectful of people’s time.”

“For years now, every single study about news avoidance reports back that users feel overwhelmed by the volume of content they are faced with every day,” Hunter writes. “And what has been the news industry’s response? More content.”

Let’s be selective and distinct. What can we offer that no one else can? How do we offer it? What’s our exclusive take instead of multiple stories readers can get elsewhere?

These insights may sound dour and dire, but as a news industry, we need to listen and evolve. The hardest part about transformation isn’t that we have no idea what to do — it’s that we have the data and guideposts but we’re not acting quickly enough. While we face business model challenges, we also face the challenge of proving our relevancy and value daily.

If you’d like to subscribe to my bi-weekly newsletter, INMA members can do so here.

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