Why conversations with news leaders can make help researchers make more effective recommendations

When researchers think (and talk) about the production of news, the focus often turns to the flaws and limitations of coverage. When we consider the power and potential of the media, it is sometimes easy to find news stories that seem to fall short of their potential. In turn, this disappointment can lead to a counterfactual: if only the journalists had done a better job, then things would be better.

As a researcher who studies political communication and polarization, I thought about this counterfactual often when I attended the API Local News Summit on Elections, Trust and Democracy in April 2024. Listening to local journalists from across the country share their experiences, I was struck by several ideas which have added important dimensions to my own perceptions about effective communication between researchers and news leaders.

• First, the extent to which the journalists were self-critical was notable. In fact, the types of criticisms I often hear from other researchers were also echoed by journalists. Although researchers and journalists are often using different language, both groups are grappling with the same ideas.
• Second, I was struck by the number and breadth of different approaches and innovations presented and discussed by the summit participants. Perhaps related to the self-critical nature of the attendees, the conversation often turned to a forthright discussion of the limitations of these innovations. Again, the summit participants were attempting to address the very same challenges we as researchers often point to in our articles: for example, the changing role of journalism in a digital and fragmented space or the increasing avoidance of news.
• Third, it is clear that local newsrooms are profoundly under-resourced. This is, of course, something that researchers know and understand. At the same time, I found it challenging to translate my research into more practical ideas given the scope of the resource limitations in many local newsrooms. In the abstract, researchers could suggest that journalists may better serve their communities by, for example, searching for different sources or using different news frames — but what happens when these things require resources (more staff, more time) that are simply not there?

Ultimately, what is striking is that researchers and journalists are working through similar challenges, limitations and ideas. What is the best way to report the news to a potentially shrinking audience? What happens to the news as the media environment becomes more complex and offers people more choices? How do we reach people whose voices have been under-represented in the news? Conversely, are there any consequences of news content that best reflect the ideas of people who are most engaged in politics?

These are all challenging questions, and I cannot imagine that anyone could conclusively argue that they have the answers. Rather, the answers likely lie at the intersection of the work that researchers and journalists are doing.

In October 2024, I organized a panel about news avoidance. This panel deliberately brought together academics conducting research on news avoidance with a working journalist and editor — Emily Lawler of the Detroit Free Press, whom I had met through the API summit — as well as another former journalist, now a media analyst. The panel participants addressed a wide-ranging set of ideas — everything from the increasing use of TikTok by journalists and news organizations to the role of podcasts in politics and the use of digital engagement metrics in the news.

They shared ideas, answered questions and, notably, sometimes disagreed. Most importantly, however, everyone acknowledged uncertainties — the media environment is changing, political candidates are relying on new campaign strategies and people are finding information through new spaces and sources. No one had all the answers, but a discussion that bridged perspectives challenged people to think about these uncertainties in a more fruitful and productive way.

I very much believe that researchers have important insights into the production and content of news. The challenge, however, is translating and communicating these insights. The key, I think, is reframing how we, as researchers, think about the recommendations we make by asking ourselves: are these recommendations implementable given the realities of journalists’ day-to-day work? The answer to that question, however, underscores a need for more conversations with journalists.

Yanna Krupnikov is a Professor of Communication and Media at the University of Michigan. Her work focuses on political communication, including attention to news and communication in a polarized political environment.