Argument 1: The “Next Gen” Paradigm Shift — From Institutional Authority to Personal Affinity and Transparency
The first core argument presented by Lisa MacLeod centers on a fundamental, irreversible shift in the nature of news consumption. She posits that the traditional “broadcast” model of journalism—where a legacy institution serves as the authoritative gatekeeper—has been dismantled by digital fragmentation and changing audience behaviors. To survive, newsrooms must pivot from relying on institutional authority to cultivating “affinity,” “credibility,” and “transparency.”
The Collapse of the Homepage and the Crisis of Discovery
MacLeod begins by diagnosing the current state of the industry. She notes that while newsrooms have spent decades trying to “get to grips with digital,” the environment has shifted again before they could stabilize. The primary casualty of this shift is the “homepage.” Historically, the homepage was the destination where editors signaled importance and audiences passively accepted those signals. MacLeod argues that this model has been completely “disintermediated” by social media and search engines.
The audience no longer comes directly to the source. Instead, news is encountered incidentally across a fragmented ecosystem of apps and platforms. MacLeod references data from the Financial Times (FT) showing “downward pressure” on traditional consumption, illustrating that users are actively seeking “different sources” and “more authentic sources” across the web. The irony, she notes, is palpable: traditional news organizations, which view themselves as the bastions of truth and authenticity, are no longer perceived as the most authentic sources by the audience. The “brand” of a newspaper is no longer enough to command attention or trust in a feed populated by individual creators and algorithmic content.
The Four Pillars of Next-Gen News Needs
Drawing heavily on the “Next Gen News” ethnographic study (conducted with her colleague, whom the transcript misidentifies but is likely Lano Lanzerotti), MacLeod outlines what younger audiences (Gen Z and young Millennials) actually value. She identifies four critical pillars that define their relationship with information: Credibility, Affinity, Transparency, and Intention.
- Affinity over Authority: This is perhaps the most disruptive finding for legacy media. MacLeod argues that younger audiences do not inherently trust a “masthead” or a faceless institution. Instead, they seek “affinity”—a connection to the specific human being telling the story. This directly challenges the traditional newsroom norm of the “impersonal byline” or the “voice from nowhere.” In legacy media, the journalist is often discouraged from inserting their personality into the story to maintain “objectivity.” MacLeod argues that for the next generation, personality is the bridge to trust. They want to know who is speaking, what their perspective is, and why they should care.
- Transparency and the “Bias” Paradox: MacLeod highlights a sophisticated nuance in how younger users perceive truth. Traditional journalism often hides the reporter’s perspective to project neutrality. However, the “Next Gen” audience finds this lack of transparency suspicious. MacLeod notes that successful news creators often “lay their biases out on the table.” By explicitly stating, “I have an inherent bias in this subject,” a creator paradoxically earns more trust than a news organization claiming to have none. The audience values the honesty of acknowledged subjectivity over the perceived artifice of institutional objectivity.
- Personal Significance and Intention: The consumption of news is no longer about obligation (reading the news because “it’s important”); it is about “personal significance.” MacLeod points out that these audiences have a very high threshold for storytelling standards. They are not looking for generic content; they are looking for content that helps them make sense of their specific world. This requires a shift from generalist reporting to journalism with a clear “intention”—content that answers the user’s specific needs and helps them navigate their lives.
The Myth of the “Dumbed Down” Audience
A critical sub-text of MacLeod’s argument is the rejection of the idea that younger audiences are disengaged or unintelligent. She describes the current news environment as “quite sophisticated.” Younger users are adept at “sifting through news,” cross-referencing sources, and making sense of disparate pieces of information. They are not passive consumers; they are active evaluators.
However, because their method of evaluation is based on authenticity rather than legacy, traditional newsrooms are failing to capture them. MacLeod warns that the industry’s standard response—which is often to simply push the same text-based content onto new platforms—is insufficient. The format of text itself is questioned (“We are largely a text industry and have been since time immemorial”). The argument suggests that unless newsrooms can adopt the “language” of this new generation—which is visual, personal, and transparent—they will face an existential crisis of relevance.
Conclusion on the Paradigm Shift
Ultimately, MacLeod argues that the friction between legacy news production and next-gen consumption is not just a “distribution” problem; it is a “product” problem. The product (impersonal, text-heavy, authoritative news) no longer fits the market (personal, visual, authenticity-driven consumption). The solution requires a philosophical pivot: newsrooms must stop acting like distant broadcasters and start acting like participants in a community, where trust is earned through human connection rather than historical prestige.
Argument 2: The “News Creator” Economy is a Legitimate, High-Efficiency Competitor that Legacy Media Must Embrace
The second core argument addresses the rise of the “News Creator” economy. MacLeod challenges the traditional industry’s tendency to dismiss creators as mere “influencers” or amateurs. Instead, she frames them as highly efficient, trust-driven competitors who have successfully modernized the value chain of journalism. Her argument is that legacy media must move from “sniffy” judgment to active partnership and emulation.
Legitimizing the News Creator
MacLeod begins by defining the “News Creator” using data from the “Project C” research (referencing Canva and the News Creator Report). She draws a sharp distinction between a general social media influencer and a “News Creator.” The definition she provides is specific: these are individuals or teams who consistently create and share news-related content on digital-first platforms, and crucially, they adhere to principles of accuracy, integrity, and transparency.
This definition is vital to her argument. She counters the skepticism of the room by explaining that for news creators, accuracy is an economic necessity. Unlike a journalist at a large paper who is shielded by a legal department and a massive brand, a creator’s livelihood is intensely connected to their personal reputation. If they lose the trust of their audience, their revenue evokes instantly. Therefore, they are often hyper-vigilant about getting facts right and correcting errors transparently. MacLeod notes that many creators they interviewed cited accuracy and integrity as their primary standards—not just for moral reasons, but for survival.
The Taxonomy of Creators
MacLeod breaks down the creator ecosystem into three distinct categories, illustrating that they are replicating and evolving traditional journalism roles:
- Investigators: These creators perform original reporting. They dig into data, interview sources, and break news. They are doing “capital J” journalism but distributing it directly to audiences without an intermediary.
- Explainers: This group takes existing information—often from traditional news sources—and repackages it. They make complex topics (politics, economics, science) palatable and understandable for specific niches. MacLeod notes that while they rely on “trad news” for fodder, they are doing a better job at storytelling and distribution than the organizations that originated the news.
- Commentators: These creators provide analysis and perspective, driving community engagement.
The Value Chain Disruption
A central pillar of this argument is the economic comparison between the “Legacy Value Chain” and the “Creator Value Chain” (referencing slides by Lucy Kueng).
- The Legacy Value Chain: MacLeod describes the traditional media structure as heavy, complex, and expensive. It involves high overheads: huge HR departments, legal teams, finance, expensive content management systems (CMS), physical distribution (trucks, printing presses), and highly paid staff. She argues that the things legacy media considered “competitive moats” (expert systems, institutional access) are turning into “competitive hurdles.” They are so expensive to maintain that they slow the organization down and drain resources that could be used for innovation.
- The Creator Value Chain: By contrast, the creator value chain is linear, fast, and cheap. It is described as: “Idea -> Draft -> Edit -> Distribute.” A creator can use Generative AI to eliminate manual work, produce content for “zero” marginal cost, and distribute it instantly to a global audience. They have no legacy friction.
The Threat and the Symbiosis
MacLeod identifies a “symbiosis” that is currently unbalanced. Creators rely on legacy media for raw information, but legacy media relies on nothing from creators—and is losing the attention war because of it. The threat is that creators offer the “funky, interesting, fun, down-with-the-kids version” of the news that legacy outlets are culturally incapable of producing.
However, MacLeod argues that this gap is an opportunity for collaboration. She suggests that news creators often lack “cover”—they don’t have legal protection, steady paychecks, or mental health support. Legacy media has these resources. She proposes models where organizations act as “platforms” or “cooperatives” for creators (citing examples like Puck or Morning Brew). In this model, the institution provides the infrastructure and credibility, while the creators provide the voice and audience connection.
Conclusion on the Creator Economy
MacLeod’s conclusion is that the “Creator Economy” and “Gen AI” are compounding forces that are putting enormous pressure on the media sector. They allow for news to be produced more cheaply, quickly, and engagingly. Therefore, the “sniffy” attitude of traditional journalists is a strategic error. The future involves acknowledging that creators are not “less than” journalists; they are a modernized version of the journalist that the industry needs to integrate.
Argument 3: Deep Structural and Operational Transformation is Required to “Incubate” the Future
The final core argument is a practical blueprint for how newsrooms can actually adapt to the realities described in the first two arguments. MacLeod argues that superficial changes—like simply telling reporters to “do TikTok”—will fail. Instead, organizations need deep Strategic, Structural, and Operational transformation to overcome the inertia of legacy systems.
Strategic Adaptation: Ruthless Prioritization
MacLeod argues that newsrooms are paralyzed by their own history. A key strategic necessity is the ability to “stop doing things.” She points out the irrationality of continuing to pour vast resources into “print optimization” when that medium is in structural decline. She advocates for a ruthless audit of resources: money and time must be taken out of dying formats to fund the new ones.
Furthermore, strategy must shift from a “content-centric” view to a “user-centric” view. It is not enough to produce news; organizations must ask, “Which customer do we care about?” and “How do we serve them?” This might mean expanding the definition of “news” to include community building, tooling, e-commerce, or purpose-driven campaigns. She also highlights the failure of incentives. If a newsroom wants innovation, but strictly rewards staff for filing text stories for the daily edition, innovation will never happen. Leadership must change the incentive structures to reward experimentation and engagement.
Structural Adaptation: The “Third Newsroom” and Innovation Centers
MacLeod posits that legacy newsrooms have strong “antibodies” that kill innovation. You cannot simply introduce a radical new workflow into an old newsroom and expect it to survive the daily deadline pressure. Therefore, she proposes distinct structural models to “incubate” the future:
- The Third Newsroom: This involves building a completely separate editorial entity alongside the legacy operation. She cites DMG New Media (Daily Mail Group) and initiatives by the Washington Post as examples. These units are freed from the constraints of the legacy newspaper. They can hire different types of talent (creators, video editors) and operate on different timelines without being crushed by the “main” newsroom’s culture.
- Centers of Excellence: This is a model where “pockets of innovation” are allowed to bloom within the larger organization. While legitimate, MacLeod warns that these are fragile. Without executive protection, these “oases” often get “closed over” by the bureaucracy.
- The Network/Cooperative Model: She highlights newer organizations like Puck or Morning Brew that are built differently from day one. These are essentially networks of “journalist influencers” who operate as a collective. This structure allows the individual talent to shine (satisfying the “Affinity” requirement) while sharing back-end costs.
Operational Adaptation: Blurring the Lines and “Fluid Journalism”
The most granular part of her argument concerns the day-to-day operations of the newsroom. MacLeod argues for the collapse of the traditional “church and state” separation between editorial and commercial departments. She explicitly praises the fact that editors are now discussing business objectives. In a resource-scarce environment, editorial capability must be aligned with commercial reality.
Operationally, this leads to the concept of “Fluid Journalism.” MacLeod argues that we must move beyond the “update-me text story.” A story should not be a static block of text; it should be a fluid set of components that can be assembled into a video, an audio clip, a social card, or a newsletter depending on how the user wants to consume it. She admits that “no newsroom is really coming anywhere close” to solving the workflow for this, but it is the necessary goal.
The Role of the Journalist: Post-Production and Personality
Finally, MacLeod redefines the job description of the journalist. It is no longer acceptable to “file the story and disappear.” She argues that post-production—the act of socializing the story, engaging in comments, and distributing it on personal channels—is now half the job. This is where the journalist mimics the behavior of the “News Creator.” They must become active participants in the distribution of their own work.
Conclusion on Transformation
MacLeod concludes by referencing the FT Transformation Flywheel (Mindset -> Skills -> Collaboration). She notes that while the FT took 20 years to pivot from print to digital, the next transition (to the AI/Creator era) must happen much faster. The industry does not have another two decades. She urges the audience to stop fearing AI as a tool that will “cannibalize” them and instead embrace it as the only way to gain the speed and efficiency required to compete with the creator economy. The path forward requires breaking the old structures to build a safe harbor for the new ways of storytelling.