A qualitative examination of (political) media diets across age cohorts in five countries

First-person political news use

Over the last decades, the entire media landscape has undergone several transformations, including the transition from low-choice to high-choice media environments (Castro et al., 2022). This change, mainly facilitated by the technological development and the rise of digital, social, and mobile media platforms, affects political information environments and challenges democracy (Andersen and Strömbäck, 2021; Van Aelst et al., 2017). On the demand side, people rely on relatively small subsets of (their preferred) media, representing the collection of media content individuals are exposed to—either voluntarily or accidentally—on a regular basis (Wolfsfeld et al., 2016). Some authors, for example Dubois and Blank (2018, p. 733), call “the regular, daily set of media individuals use (…) their media diet.”

Recent research suggests that people mix different media sources and media content to form an individual news diet (Andersen et al., 2022; Diehl et al., 2019). These news diets have been grouped into different types of media diets or subsumed under a few profile labels. The “profiles” represent different news consumption patterns and their implications for various aspects of the democratic process, such as political learning (Andersen et al., 2022), political knowledge (Castro et al., 2022), and political participation (Geers and Vliegenthart, 2021). Such studies divide news consumers according to frequency and quantity of news consumption (Andersen et al., 2022). For example, in a comparative study in 17 European countries (N = 28,317), Castro et al. (2022) differentiated between five news user profiles: “news minimalists,” “social media news users,” “traditionalists,” “online news seekers,” and “hyper news consumers.”

Against this backdrop, it becomes important to better understand the causes and motivations for media use that guide people through today’s high-choice media landscape. Hence, our first research question (RQ1) is: How do common people describe their news media diets in the current media landscape?

First-person political news norms

Another important question is what people believe they, as citizens in a society, should consume. One starting point for thinking about a “healthy” media diet is inspired by the saying “you are what you read” (Jackson, 2019), adapting the proverbial saying “you are what you eat.” In that vein, excessive consumption of information and information snacking (often happening in the online environment) is associated with information overload (Bawden and Robinson, 2009; Li, 2017). Information overload refers to “the situation where information exceeds the ability of a user to process and utilize it, resulting in negative feelings of failure” (Fan et al., 2021, p. 2). The negative effects of information overload include user exhaustion, which in turn leads to users’ discontinued usage of media (Fu et al., 2020), depression, malaise, anxiety, and insecurities (Dismukes, 2019).

Information overload is also associated with another malign phenomenon in the public sphere, namely the increasingly difficulty for people to discern true from false information (Lewandowsky, 2019). Nowadays, people’s media diets might contain much information that has the potential to be misleading or even false. For example, there are various conspiracy theories or misleading narratives that may become part of a media diet, possibly intentionally but most often unintentionally, as a side effect of using many media outlets and various platforms (Theocharis et al., 2021). Because it is nearly impossible to process all the information they come across, people with such high media use end up being less informed. According to Benton (2021), the “healthiest” news media diet is probably traditional media, consumed in a conscious manner, as too much of any media might leave people uninformed or selectively informed.

Despite the increasing availability of news, some people may avoid political news. This could be due to various reasons, including a feeling of being overloaded with information, pessimistic news coverage having a negative effect on people’s mood (Boukes and Vliegenthart, 2017), or a lack of media trust (Zerba, 2011). Although news avoidance has some positive side effects, such as improved perceived well-being (de Bruin et al., 2021), it can leave people uninformed about important public issues. Such a lack of exposure to news has important democratic ramifications: While exposure to news increases political knowledge and engagement (Aalberg and Curran, 2012), news avoidance might contribute to declining levels of political knowledge and belief accuracy (Damstra et al., 2023) and fragmentation (e.g., along educational lines, Karlsen et al., 2020), all of which can undermine the democratic process.

Recent changes to the political information environment have also increased the potential for media users to limit their exposure to attitude-inconsistent views (Stroud, 2008). Selectively exposed news users can be thought of as being in “echo chambers” of their own beliefs and interests (Sunstein, 2018). This might contribute to polarization, and threaten the existence of a shared space for information seeking, debate, and opinion formation (Terren and Borge-Bravo, 2021). Today, there are also more opportunities for media users to selectively expose themselves to—and for social and digital media, to automatically drive users toward—entertainment that directs attention away from political concerns entirely.

To date, most of the studies investigating people’s media diets and their effects make recommendations about what news people should consume and how, to limit unhealthy effects. However, researchers have not investigated—to the best of our knowledge—what people think is a healthy way of consuming media content. Hence, we formulate the following second research question (RQ2): What do common people perceive as a “healthy” news media diet?

Third-person perceptions

A relevant starting point for a discussion of how citizens perceive others’ media use in the current media landscape is considering differences across age cohorts. We believe that exploring age cohorts’ views of one another can provide important insights for understanding the multi-faceted problem of how news consumption shapes citizenship, and could help chart the map of a legitimate space of action to support democratic values. The literature suggests that the citizenship model is related to how each cohort engages in politics (Bennett, 2008; Dalton, 2008), which is intrinsically related to news consumption patterns (Boulianne and Shehata, 2022). Additionally, research shows that news consumption habits are formed early in life and stay stable throughout one’s life cycle (Ghersetti and Westlund, 2018; van der Goot and Beentjes, 2015). In this context, the view of one’s cohort on the habits of others reflects how generations born and socialized in a low- versus high-choice media environment understand the co-creation of citizenship values in a democracy. We therefore also investigate third-person perceptions because we believe that perceptions “of others” are crucial to understand for formulating recommendations to stakeholders.

Prior studies on political news consumption showed that while younger cohorts of today favor online sources and social media, older cohorts rely more on traditional sources such as flow television and newspapers (Andersen et al., 2021; Newman et al., 2021). Young individuals under 25 across the globe display a fundamentally different approach to obtaining news and political information than every cohort before. They use news websites more rarely and rely heavily on social media platforms (Newman et al., 2021). Compared to older cohorts, millennials are most broadly positioned and make use of news offers in traditional as well as online and social media sources. The older the cohort, the more pronounced the drop in website and social media use, and the higher the use of TV, radio, and newspapers (Diehl et al., 2019). Findings also suggest that younger media users have greater difficulty absorbing new information than older ones, and younger media users tend to forget information obtained from the media more quickly than older ones—but they are also able to find information more quickly online. Hence, while older cohorts retrieve information from memory, younger cohorts might easily look it up online and turn toward social media when they need specific information (Kleinberg and Lau, 2019). This difference between age cohorts is supported by data showing that both younger and older cohorts are exposed to more political information prior to an election (i.e., when in need of political information), while political news exposure drops after the election. This drop is larger for younger cohorts than for older ones (Andersen et al., 2021). Yet, younger cohorts may be more conscientious in their use of social media, and less likely to spread disinformation than older cohorts (Guess et al., 2019).

Against this backdrop, we are particularly interested in studying how people from two different cohorts perceive media consumption diets across cohorts, and how people reflect on the social (societal) consequences of media consumption diets across cohorts. It is important to note that we deliberately speak of (age) cohorts, not (social) generations. Prior studies on media and generations are heavily inspired by Karl Mannheim’s conceptualization of generations (Timonen and Conlon, 2015). Following this conceptualization, having the same generation location (i.e., age cohort) is not to be equated with membership of a specific generation as an actuality (Hart-Brinson et al., 2016, p. 93), which requires more than being born in a specific period. Nevertheless, given the pervasiveness of media, we argue that being a member of a specific cohort means sharing formative media experiences; it is hence a plausible approach to contrast two cohorts with each other. To what extent these shared experiences are sufficient to speak of generations as an actuality rather than cohorts as understood by Mannheim is beyond the scope of our analysis. Therefore, our third research question (RQ3) is: How do people perceive news media diets across cohorts?

RQ1: How do common people describe their news media diets in the current media landscape?

It is clear across all included countries that social media are the main source of political information for young adults. A variety of sources were mentioned by focus group participants. In Poland, Facebook News and Google News were noted as important sources by young media users, while in Germany, Romania, Spain, and the UK, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp were also considered relevant. Participants emphasized the instantaneous, easily accessible nature of information (PL, DE). Only in the UK, accidental exposure to political news via conventional media (radio or television at home) was mentioned. The role of family and friends in shaping news consumption was also mentioned (DE, UK).

Overall, young participants in all sampled countries did not report avoiding all news, but neither did they seem to search news out. The young participants seem to gain news in a fragmented fashion from a wide range of sources rather than a specific news channel. There seems to be some accidental exposure to political news and/or interest-driven exposure to specific issues. Moreover, not only are they reporting to not engage in what may be considered beneficial news consumption for their role as citizens in society, but they also do not believe that others do.

At the same time, across all countries, mainstream TV news channels were the primary source of news and information for the older news media users. PSB was mentioned as an important source in Germany and the UK, in line with high market shares of PSB in these countries^[5]. For instance, a German respondent noted: “Public broadcasting is watched a lot. That’s where people mainly get informed. With exceptions, I know a few people my age who also watch private television, but that’s rather unusual” (DEC07). However, in that case, there was no broad international consensus, due to differences in political contexts of the media systems. For example, in Poland, where the public media is highly politicized, public service media is deemed less accurate and less trusted by those who do not support the current right-wing government led by Prawo i Sprawiedliwość (Law and Justice). The following quote illustrates this notion: “I believe it is impossible to watch state television without having an allergic reaction. The quality of information is poor, the degree of manipulation is high, even disgusting. I tried to read the information offered by national sources; however, after a while, I gave up” (PLC01).

Respondents mentioned newspapers as important sources, too. In Spain, participants declared reading newspapers regularly (most often digital, sometimes print). Older people seemed to be interested in an in-depth coverage of issues, for which newspapers were praised. The responses provided reflected a strong defense of print news. At the same time, accessing news and information online alongside conventional media was also reported. In Poland, for example, two main approaches to media use emerged from the answers provided: using different types of media (both traditional and online), and neglecting traditional media such as television or radio and using the internet as main source of information. In Romania, the narrative regarding online media use was one of additional use, as illustrated by this quote: “I also use Facebook, the internet, and [online] newspapers, but this is my opinion, that our generation mostly watches TV” (ROC10). In the UK, for older participants, even though conventional media were still the most important source, news was often accessed online. For instance, one participant “confessed” to quickly accessing outlets online too, dipping into the media: “I do confess I read the Mail in the morning on the internet, but that’s just a quick scroll through and then on to the next” (UKC13).

RQ2: What do common people perceive as a “healthy” news media diet?

There was a clear perception among the younger participants of what a healthy media diet should include. Participants suggested characteristics such as a balance of sources (DE, RO, UK, PL); absence of selective news use unless it means the avoidance of “superficial” news (PL); use of quality news (PL); public service news (DE, UK); and a careful selection of sources (ES). To mention a few examples, participant UKC03 raised the need to access a mix of opinions and check multiple sources. A similar approach was found in Romania, Germany, and Poland:

A healthy diet means using several sources. It is also about comparing and analyzing. We cannot swallow information from one source. A balance is required. We often limit ourselves to one source, thus limiting our field of vision. (PLC09)

Participants also mentioned the need to mix traditional media and other media as well as contrast information found in different sources (RO, UK, PL, ES). In addition, the importance of an impartial source of news for a media diet to be “healthy” was mentioned. In this context, the important role of PSB in providing balanced news was mentioned (UK). To remain healthy in their news consumption, young adults also claimed that they should take responsibility for the information they consume and check the facts (PL, RO); exercise healthy skepticism (UK); and take the time to read as opposed to skim through (UK, PL). As one participant from Poland stated:

A good diet means eating good quality food. We cannot swallow facts or pseudo-facts. We need to dig deep into the sources and also read about some events on different websites. It might be a good idea to consult with someone who knows the given topic. (PLC12)

Though none of the young adults explicitly mentioned “political news” as an ingredient of a healthy media diet, respondents agreed that it is expedient within a democracy to consume some level of news. This notion is closely connected with the fact that young people in our sample were not very interested in political news (all countries). Heavy consumers of political news were rarely encountered (RO, ES), and the general belief was that young citizens are not normally interested in political news (RO):

To me, it seems that young people in Romania don’t give much importance to news… I mean there are some young people interested in politics maybe, but the majority don’t pay any kind of attention to news. (ROC01)

In contrast, groups of older adults noted that a healthy media diet needed to include political information (DE, RO). In Germany, participants attached high importance to its presence. One participant from Germany noted: “For me, it is very valuable from a political point of view if there is a large proportion of political education in everyday life. I find that very important” (DEC07). The answers also revealed that it was not just about the presence of politics but also about the quality of the ingredients (ES, PL, RO). In Spain, discussants noted that a healthy media diet should be composed of quality information, with participants emphasizing the importance of knowing who produces and writes the information. In Romania, the emphasis was on consuming less news but of a high quality. In Poland, positive comparisons with the poor diets of the past were made. As a post-communist country, one can compare the media performance and the media diet of the Polish people under the communist regime with recent media content and the way people consume it these days.

Selective diets were also seen as unhealthy by the oldest media users. They claimed that such a diet reinforces people’s existing views. However, in some countries (RO, PL), older adults acknowledged that it was important to avoid some news sources in the diet. Two reasons for avoidance were mentioned. First, there is a tendency to avoid political news due to biased media coverage. Second, a sense of being overwhelmed by the amount of political news in the media was mentioned. The following quote illustrates this notion:

The way of searching for information is onerous and time-consuming. I found that an overwhelming amount of political information is completely unnecessary for me. I am only interested in information related to my loved ones and my family. The flow of false and polluting information is so huge that I have limited my media consumption. (PLC07)

Diversity of the media diet was also mentioned as important (ES, PL). In Spain, discussants mentioned the importance of a combination of different media and sources. In Poland, participants claimed that they are trying to make this media diet as diverse as possible, but it is selective at the same time: “The internet has given us access to various sources of information. I read in three or four foreign languages” (PLC04). Finally, in the UK, participants acknowledged that a healthy media diet was a broad diet, like the one that includes media from different political positions: “I do make myself read the Telegraph sometimes. I do make myself read the New Statesman sometimes, and the Spectator sometimes” (UKC14).

RQ3: How do people perceive news media diets across cohorts?

Despite a clear perception of what a healthy media diet should include, participants of the focus group discussions across all countries were quite critical about citizens’ performance in that matter. While discussing citizens’ media diets, participants extensively focused on differences between younger and older cohorts. Participants were critical of the media diets of both their own and the other cohort, but for different reasons.

Young participants distinguished between the way they gained political information via social media platforms as distinct from older citizens, who were perceived as still heavily relying on conventional media and news sources and TV news bulletins. In Germany, one young participant (DEC03) observed: “Traditional news watching is probably almost non-existent in our cohort. Instead, most of it is obtained via social media.” Hence, while young media participants assume that the other young people’s diet (and their own diet) is diverse, and sometimes even more diverse than the older cohort (PL, UK), they also claimed that their media diet was very unhealthy:

I believe that nowadays young people have a toxic media diet because not all that is online is OK (…) Very few are interested in politics or education, science, and many are only interested in sensationalist stories, TikTok, Instagram. (ROC01)

 

The worst way to inform ourselves is how we are doing it today. (ESC07)

Young participants described their cohort as undiscerning news consumers continually scrolling, looking for interesting information, whether political or not (UK). Others talked of grazing or skimming the news presented to them via algorithms on their devices, focusing on political news only if they were interested in the topic. In the UK, news consumption was seen as mainly interest-driven (UK), and young adults were perceived as people lacking much patience or going in-depth when seeking information. As to what types of news interested participants, young people were seen as mainly interested in sensationalist news (RO) or attracted by clickbait (PL, RO). At the same time, younger participants admitted that they are looking for information that presents politics in a rather entertaining way.

I have noticed that there is a great emphasis on infotainment, satire, memes, and sites that portray political events in a specific way. Examples are websites such as ASZDziennik or Donald.pl. We can find a humorous commentary on political events in Poland. Perhaps this is a method to reach out to younger generations. (PLC10)

Older adults were seen by the younger adults as less savvy news consumers, more vulnerable, and more likely to stick to a single source compared to young people (DE, PL, ES). As one young participant in Spain noted: “Young people tend to inform themselves online and thus to be exposed to more sources and opinions than (older) people who buy one newspaper or watch the same TV channel” (ESC11). Spanish young participants also noted that older people were more likely to believe in fake news as they are used to trusting traditional media sources and the news in general. In Germany, the young participants in the focus group were sure that they were better at evaluating sources than their parents. When asked about why they think they are better, the fact that they grew up with new media was mentioned.

In some countries, older citizens were seen by younger people as relying on conventional media that reflect their political views (DE, ES, PL, RO). For instance, in Romania one young media user noted:

The elderly have clear political preferences, and many times they remain in a bubble, in an echo chamber, and only consume specific TV channels; I believe that the elderly consume much more TV than social media and remain in their bubble, because they feed themselves only with news about a certain issue, party, or ideology. (ROC07)

Cohort differences also emerged in the conversations with older adults. There was a perception that the younger cohorts’ news consumption and interests were fundamentally different from their own (DE, RO, UK). In Romania, one discussant noted:

I believe there are differences: I look at my daughter, she is not interested in politics, nor in TV political news. She doesn’t watch much TV. They are a cohort who grew up with computers, iPads, laptops; they often have different activities they enjoy, and forget to watch news on TV. (ROC13)

Older citizens were perceived as much more interested in politics and political news. According to older participants, young cohorts are mostly consuming social media (including for informational purposes). In the UK, there was a mixed perception about younger cohorts’ news consumption, based on participants’ grandchildren. One view was that they were “not too much worried about the news” (UKC10), adding that when they were young news was not central to them either.

Another issue raised by older participants was the time-bound nature of their news consumption repertoires. News was still watched at specific times during the day (DE, ES). In Germany, older participants noted that what sets them apart from other cohorts is their time-bound routine. One commented: “For us, I would say it’s a given: news at 8 o’clock. And I don’t think the younger cohort has this rhythm at all. They watch it when they have the time or feel like it. There is definitely a big difference” (DEC07). Finally, most Spanish participants noted that they listen to the news on the radio, mostly in the morning, while some of them watch TV news in the evening.