4. Journalism is … what? Audiences weigh in

If you had to finish the sentence "Journalism is..." what would you say? It's a deceptively simple question, but one that tells us a lot about how journalism is currently viewed by the public.

As a starting point for a wider research programme on journalism and its audiences, we tracked over 1.2 million global posts across social media and news sites containing the phrase "journalism is". What people choose to say next offers a real-time reflection of public sentiment: a landscape shaped by shifting trust, platform dynamics, political divides and ongoing debate about the media's purpose.

This blog launches a broader exploration being carried out across Pulsar Group brands—Pulsar, Isentia and Vuelio—including four global events, seven studies and an in-depth webinar. Together, they will unpack the cultural, political and technological forces reshaping journalism today.

Why focus on this phrase?

Journalism still plays a central role in democratic life and media culture, but the industry has undergone huge disruption. From the collapse of print ad revenue to the rise of platform algorithms, journalism has had to adapt to structural changes while public scrutiny intensified. As business models falter, audiences are increasingly vocal in shaping what journalism should be.

This research takes a bottom-up view: not asking what journalism ought to be, but instead listening to what audiences already believe it is. These public definitions help highlight the tensions between perception and practice—between what journalism says about itself and how it’s actually received.

Four narratives dominate

Across millions of online conversations, four dominant ways of framing journalism consistently emerge: it's seen as either dead, in crisis, biased, or necessary.

Each has its own loyal base of support, but they spike in visibility when a tweet, meme or moment goes viral. Whether celebrating the press or declaring its demise, the conversation is consistently reactive, shaped by news cycles and platform dynamics.

Not all mentions are equal

When we layer in engagement metrics—likes, shares, comments—we begin to see which perspectives travel furthest. Some labels might be used frequently but fail to generate attention, while others are rare yet galvanize intense reactions.

This reveals where emotional energy sits in the debate. A label like "propaganda" might not be used as often as "biased", but it carries more charge—and is more likely to spark discussion or backlash. Meanwhile, terms like "essential" appear less frequently but are consistently shared by journalists, educators and advocates.

How politics tilts perception

Zooming in on political events shows just how polarized these definitions can become. Around US primary debates, middle-ground terms disappear. Instead, audiences turn to binary descriptors: journalism is either "crucial" or "dead", with little room for subtlety.

We see a similar trend in other regions. Following Julian Assange’s release, Australian and New Zealand audiences were significantly more likely to use terms like "vital" when discussing journalism. It marked a rare moment where positivity about the press spiked, in contrast to more jaded US or UK discourse.

What this tells us about journalism’s future

What people believe journalism “is” shapes what they’re willing to defend, fund, read and share. These narratives aren’t just commentary—they influence everything from election legitimacy to the viability of local media.

If the loudest voices keep declaring journalism “dead”, that affects its perceived relevance. If others insist it’s “necessary”, they’re reinforcing its civic value. Understanding how these definitions shift over time is crucial for those inside the industry—but also for marketers, communicators and policymakers who intersect with the news landscape.

Click here to go back to the State of Journalism homepage.

Want to hear more from Pulsar? Subscribe to our newsletter below.