Journalists tend to treat news avoidance as a sign that audiences have become lazy or distracted. The data tells a different story.
A habit, not a fringe behaviour
The Reuters Institute's Digital News Report 2025 found that around 40% of respondents across markets say they sometimes or often avoid the news. Overall trust in news sat at 40% too, roughly where it has been for a few years. Two numbers, both stuck.
Avoidance is rarely total. Most people who step back still read something now and then. They are choosing when, and on what terms, they will let the news in.
What people say drives them away
Across recent editions of the report, the reasons repeat. People say there is too much politics and conflict. They feel worn down by the volume. Coverage puts them in a worse mood, and many feel there is nothing they can do with what they have just read.
Notice what is missing from that list: nobody says the reporting was inaccurate. The complaint is about what the coverage does to them and what it leaves undone.
Where attention is going instead
The same report noted that in the United States, social and video networks (54%) had overtaken television (50%) and news websites as a source of news. Attention has moved to places where creators talk to people directly and where news sits next to everything else in their day.
What newsrooms can test
None of this calls for softer journalism. It calls for questions that many newsrooms skip. Does this story help someone understand what happens next? Does it show a way forward where one exists? Is the time and mood cost of reading it justified?
Teams that ask these questions regularly, and check the answers with real readers, tend to find small changes that matter: a clearer explainer under a breaking story, fewer alerts, more context. It is slow work, and it starts with treating avoidance as feedback.
Sources: Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2025.