Thinking about the tech stack doesnt help people who already abandoned our content (because they don't feel represented), can't or won't interact with our products (because of price and literacy and well, being less privileged). New forms or stacks wont fix that.
I regard this piece, as interesting as it is from a technical pov, as a very, highly techno-deterministic view of what journalism/news is (for). You cannot look at technology (or form factors or services) without taking the socio-economic context of technology into account. Good journalism makes promises to people, not machines. Promises require commitment from humans, not software (as smart/intelligent as a lot of people mistake the software for these days). Anno 2026 journalism/news is perceived as 'microdosing hell' by more and more - it doesn't matter how much MCPs, new products, shapes or forms you present that content in. We've been very good at publishing more content, cheaper produced and in various new forms over the last two decades. What's been missing in the transformation is the promises that journalism is supposed to be delivering on (please read Patrick Boehler on this). It's the promises you make and keep to human audiences that matter most. No piece of software can replace that h2h-contract. AI-software might augment the process somewhere, but improving ourselves and our workflows to death, repackaging content to satisfy machine-needs... that would be the opposite and mostly wrong direction to get to a truly sustainable journalistic future and of real value to the audience we first, foremost and eventually do our work for..
Thanks for sharing. I think the tech stack and what we make of it are two different things, and they’re not incompatible. It’s up to each newsroom to decide whether to race to the bottom or aim higher in the value of information.
The piece doesn't say technology replaces journalism's promise to people. It says the interface through which people encounter journalism is changing. That matters.
"Journalism makes promises to people, not machines" sounds wise until you realize that people increasingly reach journalism through machines, platforms, assistants, and other mediated surfaces. Once that happens, form is no longer a side issue. It's part of the relationship.
Pretending product, distribution, and interface are somehow beneath journalism's real moral work is exactly the kind of thinking that has helped news organizations rationalize their own irrelevance for years.
A promise that no longer reaches people isn't a higher form of journalism. It's self-comfort.
I think we see the same problem: a lot of ppl have moved away from consuming news and journalism, regardless of its form or shape. A new shape, form or player wont fix that. If you can tell us how AI / chatbots will help ppl trust facts and news/journalism again, ease their information overload and help them with anxieties about whats happening in the world AND have them pay for it again... I think we all would love to know how to do that.
This. I believe the argument but this is the same problem in a new form factor. I don’t see how this solves for building stronger connections and relationships with readers.
I’m glad you’ve placed the fate of journalism in my hands.
But you're using still the same dodge: unless AI, chatbots, or new interfaces can single-handedly restore trust, reduce anxiety, solve overload, and make everyone pay again, we apparently shouldn’t take them seriously.
That’s a convenient standard. Also an absurd one.
No one said new forms magically fix journalism. The point is that if people have moved away from consuming news regardless of its current form, then maybe the uncomfortable possibility is that many publishers are simply making the wrong product.
Not just pricing it wrong. Not just distributing it wrong. Making the wrong product.
A product people don’t experience as useful enough, distinctive enough, or worth paying for in the environments where they now live.
So yes, trust matters. Also relevance, representation, product, interface, friction and format. And if audiences keep walking away, repeating “good journalism makes promises to people” is not a strategy. It’s a consolation ritual.
Maybe the solution is less mystical than we pretend: if people aren’t willing to pay, maybe you’re not offering something they value enough in the form they need it.
Maybe.... Or should we accept that journalism is a market failure? I know we come from different camps, have different views, so we don't have to repeat our arguments over and over. I see the value of journalism in preserving democracy, holding power to account. If that's moralistic or activistic to you, I'm totally fine with that.
So I don't bother to look at the economic underpinnings of what people value with their wallets or time. I believe in journalism as a power, necessary pillar for healthy democracies.
Thinking about the tech stack doesnt help people who already abandoned our content (because they don't feel represented), can't or won't interact with our products (because of price and literacy and well, being less privileged). New forms or stacks wont fix that.
I regard this piece, as interesting as it is from a technical pov, as a very, highly techno-deterministic view of what journalism/news is (for). You cannot look at technology (or form factors or services) without taking the socio-economic context of technology into account. Good journalism makes promises to people, not machines. Promises require commitment from humans, not software (as smart/intelligent as a lot of people mistake the software for these days). Anno 2026 journalism/news is perceived as 'microdosing hell' by more and more - it doesn't matter how much MCPs, new products, shapes or forms you present that content in. We've been very good at publishing more content, cheaper produced and in various new forms over the last two decades. What's been missing in the transformation is the promises that journalism is supposed to be delivering on (please read Patrick Boehler on this). It's the promises you make and keep to human audiences that matter most. No piece of software can replace that h2h-contract. AI-software might augment the process somewhere, but improving ourselves and our workflows to death, repackaging content to satisfy machine-needs... that would be the opposite and mostly wrong direction to get to a truly sustainable journalistic future and of real value to the audience we first, foremost and eventually do our work for..
Thanks for sharing. I think the tech stack and what we make of it are two different things, and they’re not incompatible. It’s up to each newsroom to decide whether to race to the bottom or aim higher in the value of information.
Nice moral pose, but it's still a straw man.
The piece doesn't say technology replaces journalism's promise to people. It says the interface through which people encounter journalism is changing. That matters.
"Journalism makes promises to people, not machines" sounds wise until you realize that people increasingly reach journalism through machines, platforms, assistants, and other mediated surfaces. Once that happens, form is no longer a side issue. It's part of the relationship.
Pretending product, distribution, and interface are somehow beneath journalism's real moral work is exactly the kind of thinking that has helped news organizations rationalize their own irrelevance for years.
A promise that no longer reaches people isn't a higher form of journalism. It's self-comfort.
I think we see the same problem: a lot of ppl have moved away from consuming news and journalism, regardless of its form or shape. A new shape, form or player wont fix that. If you can tell us how AI / chatbots will help ppl trust facts and news/journalism again, ease their information overload and help them with anxieties about whats happening in the world AND have them pay for it again... I think we all would love to know how to do that.
This. I believe the argument but this is the same problem in a new form factor. I don’t see how this solves for building stronger connections and relationships with readers.
I’m glad you’ve placed the fate of journalism in my hands.
But you're using still the same dodge: unless AI, chatbots, or new interfaces can single-handedly restore trust, reduce anxiety, solve overload, and make everyone pay again, we apparently shouldn’t take them seriously.
That’s a convenient standard. Also an absurd one.
No one said new forms magically fix journalism. The point is that if people have moved away from consuming news regardless of its current form, then maybe the uncomfortable possibility is that many publishers are simply making the wrong product.
Not just pricing it wrong. Not just distributing it wrong. Making the wrong product.
A product people don’t experience as useful enough, distinctive enough, or worth paying for in the environments where they now live.
So yes, trust matters. Also relevance, representation, product, interface, friction and format. And if audiences keep walking away, repeating “good journalism makes promises to people” is not a strategy. It’s a consolation ritual.
Maybe the solution is less mystical than we pretend: if people aren’t willing to pay, maybe you’re not offering something they value enough in the form they need it.
Maybe.... Or should we accept that journalism is a market failure? I know we come from different camps, have different views, so we don't have to repeat our arguments over and over. I see the value of journalism in preserving democracy, holding power to account. If that's moralistic or activistic to you, I'm totally fine with that.
So I don't bother to look at the economic underpinnings of what people value with their wallets or time. I believe in journalism as a power, necessary pillar for healthy democracies.