If you’re a college student, chances are the last time you read a physical newspaper, it was The Wire because we have great journalists. And yet, if you ask the media establishment, the reason young people are turning away from traditional news is because we’re lazy, uninformed or too obsessed with social media to care about the real world.
That’s complete nonsense. The truth is, college students aren’t shifting from news outlets — we’re abandoning them. We are more informed than ever, but we’re rejecting an outdated, elitist industry that has failed to evolve, failed to earn our trust and meet us where we are. Traditional news sources aren’t being ignored out of apathy; they’re being left behind because they refuse to acknowledge why they no longer serve us.
Mainstream media’s credibility problem isn’t new, but for our generation, it’s irreversible. According to a 2023 Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust mass media, and even fewer young people do. The Reuters Institute’s 2023 Digital News Report found that just 37% of people aged 18-24 trust news overall — the lowest of any age group. This isn’t some mysterious decline. It’s the direct result of years of corporate influence, sensationalism and editorial agendas disguised as objectivity. Journalism in its ideal form is about holding power accountable, but most major outlets today are power. They are owned by massive corporations like Comcast, News Corp and Warner Bros. Discovery, and their reporting reflects those interests.
Just look at how they frame global conflicts. During the Israel-Palestine crisis, mainstream U.S. media outlets like The New York Times and CNN were heavily criticized for biased coverage, prioritizing Israeli government narratives while downplaying or outright ignoring Palestinian suffering. Many young people chose to turn away from these sources and instead followed independent journalists and firsthand accounts on social media.
The same happened in 2020 with the Black Lives Matter protests. While social media was flooded with real-time videos of police violence, mainstream outlets often relied on sanitized, police-friendly versions of events. The media didn’t start accurately covering the scope of the protests until it became impossible to ignore. We watched in real-time as outlets chose their angles based on what was convenient for them — not what was actually happening.
So why should we trust them now?
Let’s say, despite all of this, a student still wants to give traditional media a chance. They hear about a major event, want to read an in-depth analysis, and go to The Washington Post — only to be hit with a paywall demanding $12.99 a month.
The very idea that critical news should be behind a paywall is outrageous. College students already struggle to afford tuition, rent and necessities, and now we’re expected to fork over even more money just to stay informed? That’s not how a functional democracy should work.
Meanwhile, social media is free and instant. Yes, misinformation exists (as if mainstream media has never misled the public), but social media allows for real-time fact-checking and community debate. Platforms like Reddit and Threads enable users to question narratives, compare sources and challenge misinformation far more effectively than the traditional one-way news model.
Instead of expecting us to pay for information that should be publicly accessible, maybe news organizations should rethink their business model. Journalism is a public good, and if major outlets truly cared about an informed society, they would prioritize access over profit.
Beyond trust and accessibility, there’s another reason we’ve abandoned legacy media: it just doesn’t fit our world anymore. We consume news differently, with Twitter threads and YouTube visual breakdowns communicating complex topics in 5 minutes. Traditional journalism is a one-way street; reporters write, we read. But Gen Z doesn’t consume news passively – we engage with it. We debate, comment and call out inaccuracies in real time.
Young college students don’t usually buy into the illusion of “objective journalism.” We know that every outlet has biases, whether they admit it or not. The difference is, independent journalists and digital creators are upfront about their perspectives, while legacy media hides behind a false neutrality. Journalism shouldn’t be about maintaining an outdated sense of prestige – it should be about meeting people where they are. And right now, where we are allows us to engage with news in a way traditional outlets refuse to acknowledge.
Some journalists still believe Gen Z will “grow out of this” and eventually return. They’re wrong. The media landscape is not going back to what it was; it’s going to keep evolving. If traditional media outlets want to stay relevant, they have no choice but to change. That means ditching the paywalls, being transparent about biases and engaging with us where we are. Until then, we’ll continue getting our news independently. Not because we’re uninformed, but because we refuse to engage with an industry that refuses to evolve.
