Thoughts from our strategist: AI & trust in media

Every conversation about innovation in journalism comes back to one thing: does it help build trust? Paradoxically, technology - often cited as what is most likely to undermine it – just might offer us the tools to help restore it. Our senior editorial strategist, Stefan ten Teije, has noticed a theme emerging on this subject.

Recently, I attended conferences dedicated to the future of journalism. In Dublin, members of the International News Media Association (INMA) gathered to discuss the business challenges facing our industry. There, the continued digital transformation of legacy media (radio, television, print) remained front and centre. There’s a growing realisation that branding, distribution and pricing demand far more attention than is currently being given to them. Scaling, bundling and automation are the buzzwords shaping this transformation.

What struck me most was that both newsrooms and end users want a more human touch: journalists and editors want to feel efficacy in their work - and audiences want to feel listened to and engaged with. And you don’t need to be a psychologist to see how processes such as automation can easily smother that human touch.

That’s why the B Future Festival in Bonn provided such a fascinating counterpoint. Where Dublin focused on commercial realities, Bonn was more inward-facing, looking at the moral and idealistic heart of journalism. In her opening speech, Ellen Heinrichs of the Bonn Institute urged her audience to “empower people”, “put people at the centre of your journalism”, “focus on solutions and hope”, and to “make journalism not just for the mind, but also for the heart”.

The presentations and interviews that followed gave those phrases substance: how to involve audiences in story creation (host live events!), how to borrow the tone and authenticity that make influencer content resonate, and how to be fully – indeed, uncompromisingly – transparent about your intent and production process.

More on that later. But first, it’s worth pausing to recognise that the challenges journalism faces are nothing short of existential.

Over breakfast after the first day in Bonn, I fell into conversation with two journalism lecturers, and the discussion turned to our own news habits. I told them I had read two newsletters and listened to a podcast that morning and found far more value and satisfaction there than in scrolling through news apps. They agreed and said they’d done much the same. While they still urge their students to follow the news, their own habits have drifted elsewhere.

So there we were, three advocates of strong journalism, all quietly disengaged from traditional news channels ourselves – and enthusing about the alternatives. Perhaps journalists themselves also feel exhausted by the information overload.

---

Trust and the news: some key stats, figures & information

A lot has been written about trust and the news*:

• 40% of people worldwide trust “the news” (and many now actively avoid it)
• Younger respondents in particular say they feel powerless in the face of existential threats such as economic insecurity and climate change
• Youngers audiences (here they mean those under 35 - apologies to the young-at-heart among you/us who just miss this category) are increasingly turning to social media or even chatbots to get “reliable information”

*According to Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025

The fact that younger audiences turn to TikTok and Chatbots hurts the journalistic heart. Social media? Really? And a chatbot? One wonders whether people realise that these bots are trained on information originally produced by news organisations, yet so often veer wildly off course through hallucinations or a lack of essential context.

But to focus on the mechanics of this kind of news production is to bury the lede here just a little bit.

If AI helps users navigate an ocean of information, there’s a learning for newsrooms too: readers need a conversational approach.

Felix M. Simon from the Reuters Institute (again, in Bonn) proffered a different take on this situation.

His contention is that it is precisely because so many people struggle to make sense of the deluge of information, that they are increasingly turning to AI Search or AI chatbots - to summarise news, or to clarify specific issues. The need for news, it turns out, hasn’t vanished at all. It has simply changed form. Nearly half (48 percent) of those using chatbots say they do so to better understand a news story.

When asked whether people trust AI-driven search results, 50 percent said yes. That’s higher than those who say they trust “the news” itself. When I asked Simon about this, he cautioned against reading too much into it: “It’s a different sample, and a different question,” he noted.

Even so, the finding points to something important. A chatbot carries neither the authority nor the baggage of a news brand. It is seen as neutral. More crucially, it helps users navigate the information overload. It focuses on inquiry.

So in fact the learning here is simple – but it’s also transformative:

When people can define the parameters of that inquiry themselves, they’re more likely to receive an answer that feels genuinely satisfying.

To draw a conclusion and apply this observation to the field I work in, I’d like to pose (and answer) the following rhetorical question: doesn’t the same apply to journalists themselves?

We’ve said it before: in news, niche is nice

This may be also why formats like podcasts and newsletters are often cited as being so successful. These guide their audiences through the noise, often interpreting the news through a personal – and very specific – lens. Journalists should tread carefully here, but it’s worth recognising that this need for guidance is real and growing. Podcasts and newsletters tap into precisely the same instinct. They shine light on niche topics, each built around a clear editorial question. After five minutes of reading or an hour of listening, you’ve arrived at the answer you were promised at the start.

In Bonn, Deutsche Welle political correspondent Jennifer Holleis noted that her newsletter enjoys an 87 percent open rate and has prompted more positive feedback than anything else she’s done. Perhaps it’s because newsletters arrive in our inboxes - themselves a sacred space and where we, the end user, also act as gatekeepers. But more than that, a newsletter invites reflection; its tone is conversational, its intimacy unforced. Podcasts offer a similar closeness: they sound like a guided conversation rather than a broadcast. And just look at the sense of fulfilment this evokes in journalists themselves.

Here’s the opportunity for AI in newsrooms

In the modern newsroom, storytelling competes with dashboards and performance metrics. The danger is obvious: journalism risks becoming an exercise in optimisation rather than imagination. But there is a more valuable upside: when technology serves the story – not the other way round – it sharpens focus rather than blurring it.

And technology, used wisely, should never get in the way of the story.

Data-driven newsrooms and human centred storytelling are not mutually exclusive

Many speakers (at both aforementioned events) championed human-centred storytelling – but many also expressed fatigue with the tools designed to support that goal, and the narrative seems often to imply that the latter is an obstacle to the former. I have a few thoughts on this.

1. The wrong editorial analytics solution = too much data noise

Analytics and data-driven editorial strategies are still presented with the caveat to stop chasing pageviews – as if that is all these approaches are capable of. Our key users at smartocto know and understand this, but even the most enthusiastic proponent of editorial analytics tools might still admit that data can become noise. Put five editors in front of the same dashboard, and you’ll get five interpretations.

At smartocto, we’ve believed from the start (ten years ago) that a data tool should do far more than generate dashboards and churn out reports. It should be able to be embedded into the very fabric of the newsroom - right from the beginning of any story life cycle. Where data about engagement and loyalty and reach can be fed back into the editorial workflow you’re more likely to grow straight and true.

What you need is to be able to translate the data into something amounting to a shared language, which logs audience signals and turns those signals into better story ideas.

Data must be clear, actionable and useful.

2. First comes editorial purpose and mission. Editorial analytics should help you navigate towards that point - not be the destination

The essence of the relationship between publisher and audience, of course, is transparency and clarity of purpose. In Bonn, Wytse Vellinga from the Dutch public broadcasters shared some compelling thoughts on the matter: start with your journalistic mission. Be open about your intent as a writer, even about how your work is funded. Then explain why your story matters to your audience.

That’s good advice in any newsroom, but it becomes even more powerful when paired with the direction that data tools like ours are taking: the user needs approach, combined with actionable insights and really smart personal notifications. It creates a cycle of reflection and improvement that helps editorial teams craft stories that genuinely serve their readers. All that information, once analysed, will provide valuable clues about whether your journalism truly fulfils audience needs.

3. Find your audience - and speak to them where they are

Then come the familiar challenges: branding, distribution and value. Find your audience. Speak to them without exhausting them. Do it not only in newsletters and podcasts, but also on your main platform. Use a conversational approach that reflects your mission and matches your tone.

And, critically, be honest about your own responses to distribution. My colleagues and I all took a moment to reflect on our own preferred news habits - and let’s face it: as journalists (or at least those in the industry) we’re likely to be a lot more interested in the news than your average Joe.

I believe that this is where a more human form of journalism begins. Perhaps it’s even where trust can be rebuilt.