Personalized News: Oracle or Echo Chamber?

Visit any panel discussion about the future of news, or read an op ed about how to engage readers in the digital age, and the word “personalization” is bound to come up. This trend is far from new - personalization has been the name of the game since the mobile revolution put content in the palm of everyone’s hand. But what’s really possible when it comes to personalizing news content? Is it good for business? What about society at large? Let’s explore.

The possibilities of personalized news

In the face of declining revenues and shrinking search traffic, publishers are keen on innovative ways to pad the bottom line. Enter: personalization. Delivering personalized news feeds is not only a great way to engage audiences but also allows publishers to serve more targeted ads at higher CPMs. But what does a personalized experience on a website or in an app really look like?

After a visit to NAB in 2025, Dak Dillon reported for News Cast Studio, “Dynamic paywalls adjust subscription offers based on reader behavior. Email newsletters adapt to reading preferences. Even content bundles can be tailored to different audience segments. These product reconfigurations have shown promising results, with many outlets reporting higher conversion rates and deeper audience relationships.”

A key concept here is that of 'liquifying' news. Liquified news can be presented in multiple formats to suit the reader. Publishers are deploying artificial intelligence (AI) voice assistants to deliver audio briefings, the same story changes format based on user preferences, and even the extreme option of “choose your own adventure” news stories. A Columbia Journalism Review describes a VR experience in which “...a VR rendition of a protest on raising the minimum wage could allow a participant to choose to follow those marching in favor, or decide to stand with those against reform.”

What’s possible in the realm of personalization is rapidly expanding as AI works its way into more aspects of the newsroom. And this technology makes even the basics of personalization more accessible to media outlets of all sizes. As Press Gazette’s Paul Hood puts it, “Ever noticed how Youtube and Tiktok always seem to know what you’d like to watch next? That’s AI at work. Publishers can use the same magic to recommend stories, videos, or podcasts based on what readers have previously enjoyed.”

This example underscores the expectation that audiences want the platforms they engage with to get to know them and serve them the content they love. Still, when it come to news, consumers are wary : Reuters Institute research found that, while almost half of respondents are comfortable with news personalization, that is a lower figure compared to personalization of music, weather, or television suggestions.

Losing the common ground

Personalized content may make business sense for media companies, but it’s hard not to ask questions about the core mission of journalism and the ethics of perpetuating the echo chamber effect that’s already taken hold on so many social media platforms. As Dillon puts it, “The same algorithms that can enhance reader experience also risk undermining journalism’s core social function. When everyone sees a different version of reality through their personalized news feeds, we lose the common ground necessary for democratic discourse.”

For struggling newsrooms, however, personalization may be the difference between being able to pursue “the core mission of journalism” and shutting their doors. Press Gazette reports that German news magazine EXPRESS.de introduced a system called Klara Indernach (KI), which has “has led to a 50-80% increase in clickthrough rates when AI curates articles based on user interests.”

Publishers can also adapt content on the fly in ways that would be nearly unimaginable without the help of AI. “Let’s say you’re scrolling through your phone during a quick lunch break. AI might deliver a short, snappy summary of an article. But if you’re on a desktop with time to spare, it could serve up a full-length deep dive on the same topic,” according to Press Gazette. This allows publishers to finally deliver on the promise of delivering the right content in the right format at the right time to the right person.

AI also makes it possible for publishers to analyze behavioral patterns, ultimately anticipating what individuals will be interested in next. Depending on who you ask, applying the same algorithms that keep people scrolling through TikTok to real news may not be all it’s cracked up to be. Dillon argues, “When combined with engagement-driven recommendation systems that favor sensational content, personalization can become a breeding ground for misinformation.”

Striking the right balance with personalization

So, in addition to potentially building readership for beleaguered publishers, the technique of news personalization also raises ethical questions. Back in 2024, Laura Gartry tackled this tricky topic for Reuters Institute: “This discrepancy raises the question: if users are increasingly exposed to content that aligns with their existing views and interests, how can we ensure that important, albeit less popular, stories reach a wide audience? More broadly: how do we balance technological advancement with journalistic integrity and user trust?”

After evaluating the evidence, Gartry found that news recommendations improved content discovery, keeping readers longer and reducing exposure to third parties, ultimately enhancing financial stability for public interest journalism. These benefits, however, need to be weighed against the risk of reinforcing readers' blind spots and biases. The key seems to be to balance algorithmic suggestions with human-curated content. A good example is the Canadian daily Globe and Mail. Despite an almost entirely algorithm-driven website, “The top three slots on the Globe and Mail’s homepage are always chosen by editors to highlight the most important stories, reflecting the newspaper’s role in setting the national agenda.”

Outside the comfort zone

Reuters’ research also found that users say they value localized recommendations, the perception that automated suggestions are less biased, and the delivery of “more varied topics and viewpoints.” In other words, consumers value relevance, but smart news organizations may want to ensure their algorithms and editors challenge viewers with something outside their comfort zone.