Digitised red-tops have killed the broadsheets

Is journalism truly a dying art? I’m not convinced. But if it is, how did we get here—and, perhaps more importantly, why?

I recently came across a post on LinkedIn from Rosie Taylor, an “award-winning investigative journalist”, reflecting on the decline of print newspapers. She wrote: “Always breaks my heart a little bit to see this: yesterday’s unsold newspapers all bundled up ready to be sent back and pulped.” She added: “Just think of all the effort that went into those beautifully crisp pages that will never even get opened.” In my day, they might have wrapped your fish supper—proof that even yesterday’s news could still serve a practical purpose. Thankfully, recycling has become a little more sophisticated since then.

Taylor was right that “we all get our news elsewhere these days”. Yet, despite there being “something so soul-affirming about holding a physical newspaper”, perhaps the industry bears some responsibility for shooting itself in the proverbial foot. Corporate media has surrendered to the monetised 24/7 news cycle, feeding our appetite for instant consumption of whatever an algorithm serves us—the digital equivalent of a waiter who ignores the menu and keeps bringing the same lukewarm starter.

Taylor admitted she might be “guilty of being too nostalgic” for the halcyon years. Yet, perhaps because of my age, I am among the minority she imagined were “getting sick of being served the same repetitive content” on their preferred digital platforms. Apparently, infinite choice now means scrolling past the same five stories in slightly different hats.

Sadly, much of today’s media resembles a conveyor belt of recycled political narratives and divisive tropes, dressed in emotive headlines for the clickbait economy. Investigative journalism, meanwhile, seems to have been tossed into nostalgia’s overflowing bin alongside yesterday’s chip wrappers—presumably after failing its quarterly engagement targets. But journalists themselves are not solely to blame; good ones remain. Responsibility lies more squarely with editorial systems directed by corporate masters, where the truth is welcome provided it fits the brand marketing strategy, and makes some money. However, most of this was also inevitable.

Today’s media behemoth—or so-called “legacy media” machine—has become more corporate and increasingly concentrated. DMG Media, News UK and Reach PLC together control 90% of UK national newspaper circulation and more than 40% of the combined reach of the country’s 50 largest online news brands (Media Reform Coalition, 2025). This concentration matters because a more diverse range of owners helps preserve a plurality of viewpoints and limits the undue influence of any one proprietor or class of proprietor (Ofcom, 2024).

Print media’s decline mirrors a broader shift away from traditional broadcast news towards digital intermediaries. In the UK, online news use rose from 64% in 2018 to 70% in 2025, while television and on-demand news reached 68%; six in ten adults now obtain news through social media, search engines or aggregators (Ofcom, 2025a). International evidence likewise records falling engagement with television, print and news websites as reliance on social-media and video platforms grows (Newman et al., 2025). The economic consequences are equally stark: UK local news lost 70% of its advertising income between 2010 and 2020, while a parliamentary inquiry warned that declining revenue threatens investigative reporting and could deepen a “two-tier” news environment in which access to professionally produced journalism varies by social, regional and economic circumstances (House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, 2024).

Availability, however, should not be mistaken for understanding. Ofcom found that people accessing news through online intermediaries are often less aware of its original source, while international research shows that audiences remain sceptical of news encountered on social and AI platforms (Ofcom, 2025a; Newman et al., 2025). The comments beneath social-media news feeds offer a less scientific but often vivid demonstration: instant access has given everyone a printing press, though not always an editor. Hence the growth of “fact-checker” services, which also probably only attract very limited use. What’s that old adage about thinking before you speak (type)? It’s clearly an uncommon methodology for many.

Even once-reliable news sources are losing their grip on public confidence. Across 48 markets, only 40% of respondents said they trusted most news most of the time, while UK trust has fallen by 16 percentage points over the longer term (Newman et al., 2025). The picture is no kinder to the profession itself: just 26% of Britons trusted journalists to tell the truth in 2025 (Ipsos, 2025). Newspapers may still be dependable for football scores, race cards and the latest ration of gossip, but their authority on public affairs increasingly arrives with the credibility of a coffee-break horoscope.

The statistics confirm what public sentiment already suggests: trust in the media has eroded to a point where it is almost non-existent. Yet those invoking George Orwell as evidence of media failings – as they often do – should first check that he wrote the words attributed to him. The oft-quoted and convenient line, “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe”, is fabricated: Reuters found no trace of it in Orwell’s books or other notable writings, and the Orwell Society confirmed that it is not authentic (Reuters, 2022). Lynskey (2019) offers two further clues: “the media” did not enter common usage until after Orwell’s death in 1950, and the sentiment conflicts with his faith in ordinary people. The irony is, however, almost too neat not to use; a warning about media manipulation that manipulates its own source.

Perhaps I have been too harsh on the “media machine”. News organisations are, after all businesses, and their commercial survival inevitably shapes editorial choices. Nor can every failure be pinned on reporters, editors or proprietors alone: because audiences reward speed, outrage and repetition with the clicks that keep the machinery running. Yet this is not simply a case of consumers getting the journalism they deserve. As outlined above, three companies control 90% of UK national newspaper circulation, while a small group of technology platforms increasingly determines how news is discovered and funded (Media Reform Coalition, 2025). A parliamentary inquiry has likewise warned that worsening economics, platform power and declining trust is now fracturing the UK’s news environment along social, regional and economic lines (House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee, 2024). Responsibility, then, is shared among owners, platforms, politicians and audiences; a remarkably efficient system in which everyone influences the news, yet nobody really accepts the invoice.

More than ever, we must think critically about what we read—especially the digital dross. Ironically, platforms such as YouTube now host a growing body of genuinely independent investigative journalism, although finding it amid the rubbish is rarely easy. Nor is resisting those who peddle “alternative facts” and “post-truths”. With “fake news” everywhere, who decides what qualifies, and whom should we trust? A sensible starting point is always to ask oneself who is speaking, what are they are saying and why. If any doubt remains, follow the money!

References

Media Reform Coalition (2025) Who owns the UK media? Available at: https://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/media-ownership-2025 (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

Ofcom (2024) Report to the Secretary of State on the media ownership rules under section 391 of the Communications Act 2003. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-and-attitudes/media-plurality/report-to-the-secretary-of-state-on-the-media-ownership-rules-the-under-section-391-of-the-communications-act (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

Ofcom (2025a) Top trends from our latest look at the UK’s news habits. Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/media-use-and-attitudes/attitudes-to-news/top-trends-from-our-latest-look-at-the-uks-news-habits (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

Newman, N., Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C.T., Nielsen, R.K. and Fletcher, R. (2025) Digital News Report 2025. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025 (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee (2024) The future of news. HL Paper 39. London: House of Lords. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldcomm/39/39.pdf (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

Ipsos (2025) Ipsos Veracity Index 2025. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/ipsos-veracity-index-2025 (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

Reuters (2022) ‘Quote about media misattributed to George Orwell’, Reuters Fact Check, 1 April. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/quote-about-media-misattributed-to-george-orwell-idUSL2N2VZ236/ (Accessed: 29 September 2026).

Lynskey, D. (2019) ‘The Ministry of Truth’, Powell’s Books, 5 June. Available at: https://www.powells.com/blog/the-ministry-of-truth (Accessed: 29 September 2026).