From neutrality to engagement: Young audiences’ evaluations of interventionist journalism across media platforms

Abstract

This study investigates young adults’ perceptions and evaluations of interventionist journalism. Drawing on 30 in-depth interviews with Austrian young adults, it explores the legitimacy of interventionist journalism, depending on forms of interventionist journalism, topic and platform. Findings indicate that while objectivity remains valued, it is increasingly understood as fairness and transparency rather than strict neutrality. Interventionist journalism is deemed appropriate when journalists are evidence-based, transparent, and address issues of clear societal importance. Notably, expectations vary across platforms: neutrality is preferred in traditional outlets, whereas advocacy and value-driven reporting are not only accepted, but expected, on social media. These findings point to a generational reconfiguration of perceived journalistic legitimacy and relevance, highlighting the need for adaptive professional norms that reconcile factual rigor with moral engagement. The study contributes to scholarly debates on the functions of journalism and provides implications for media organizations seeking to sustain and strengthen trust among young audiences.

Introduction

Young adults constitute one of the most digitally connected and media-saturated demographics (Hendrickx, 2024). Their news consumption is increasingly shaped by social media platforms and influencers rather than by traditional journalism (Peters et al., 2022; Zlobina et al., 2024). Consequently, many rely on “‘replacement’ channels” (Peters et al., 2022, p. 63), reshaping the media ecology and redefining what counts as valuable, relevant journalism (Costera Meijer, 2013; Wunderlich, Hölig and Hasebrink, 2022). At the same time, young adults tend to be politically and socially engaged (Hendrickx, 2024), and they often expect institutions, including the media, to adopt explicit positions on urgent societal issues (Moffett and Rice, 2024). Empirical evidence suggests that younger audiences are more supportive of journalists expressing personal views on social media and prefer news styles that align with digital communicative norms (Fisher et al., 2024).

These shifting expectations reflect broader transformations in journalistic legitimacy. Traditional values, particularly objectivity and its epistemological implications for journalistic practice, are increasingly contested by both practitioners and audiences (Konieczna and Santa Maria, 2023; McNair, 2017). This resonates with wider debates about journalism’s democratic role, specifically whether it should merely inform citizens or actively contribute to social change (Loosen et al., 2020; Sloam et al., 2022). Concurrently, journalists are adopting more active roles in addressing societal challenges such as climate change, social inequality, and political extremism (Verhoeven, 2025). These practices are frequently conceptualized as interventionist journalism, encompassing forms such as advocacy, commentary, and investigative reporting aimed at exposing injustices and driving change (Ginosar and Reich, 2022; Shultziner, 2025). While prior research has examined how journalists perceive interventionist practices (Reunanen and Koljonen, 2018; Shultziner, 2025), less attention has been devoted to understanding how audiences interpret and evaluate them (Mellado and Gajardo, 2026). Understanding audience perspectives is crucial, as it reveals the value systems, generational shifts, and platform dynamics that drive journalistic transformation beyond surface-level consumption patterns (Swart et al., 2022).

Additionally, studies analyzing journalistic roles from the audience perspective “have largely relied on pre-established definitions rooted in the journalistic point of view” (Mellado and Gajardo, 2026, p. 748), underscoring the value of explorative qualitative approaches. Following this call for audience-centric research (Swart et al., 2022), this study investigates how young adults evaluate interventionist journalism. Drawing on 30 in-depth interviews with young Austrian adults, it explores the conditions, platforms, and normative frameworks under which interventionist practices are considered legitimate or problematic. In doing so, the study provides a qualitative, audience-centered account of how interventionist journalism is evaluated in practice and shows how these evaluations are shaped by platform-specific contexts. It thus contributes to the ongoing redefinition of journalistic legitimacy and offers insights into the evolving relationship between journalism and its audiences, explicitly shifting its focus away from the dominant paradigm of objectivity (McNair, 2017).

Interventionist journalism

Journalism has long been grounded in professional ideals such as objectivity, serving as benchmarks for what is considered good journalism (Kovach and Rosenstiel, 2001). Despite ongoing debate (e.g., Verhoeven, 2025), objectivity remains widely upheld across diverse media systems (Hanitzsch et al., 2019). However, broader social, economic, and technological transformations have fostered new journalistic forms that challenge and expand this principle (Peters et al., 2022). These include the rise of opinionated and interpretive reporting, increased partisan programming, and the growth of ideologically oriented media organizations (Shultziner, 2025). Such developments blur the boundaries between journalism, advocacy, and activism, intensifying debates about journalism’s societal role (Ward, 2009).

These practices can be conceptualized as interventionist journalism, defined as “the extent to which journalists pursue a particular mission and promote certain values” (Hanitzsch, 2007, p. 372). Journalistic interventionism is best understood as a continuum, with scholars proposing to classify journalistic models by degrees of interventionism, ranging from descriptive observer, over interpretive, investigative, constructive, advocacy, and civic activist to obsessive-activist (Ginosar and Reich, 2022). These forms are neither mutually exclusive nor fixed role models (Shultziner, 2025). Rather, interventionist journalism is characterized by deliberate intention to shape public understanding or foster social and political change (Hanitzsch et al., 2019). This intentionality distinguishes it from media bias (Shultziner, 2025): whereas bias reflects structural influences on content, interventionist journalism involves deliberate departure from objectivity to advance normative goals (Shultziner, 2025).

Whether journalists should engage as participants in social development or remain detached observers has long been debated (Hanitzsch, 2007; Mellado, 2020). Professionally, interventionist tendencies are often deemed illegitimate, as they contradict neutrality and detachment central to Western journalism cultures. Accordingly, journalists tend to resist overt interventionism (Hanitzsch et al., 2019; Loosen et al., 2020), as such practices are frequently associated with bias, activism, or a loss of credibility (Ward, 2009). Nevertheless, national and cultural contexts shape journalistic orientations. In Finland, for instance, proactive and opinionated reporting has gained visibility, especially among younger journalists (Reunanen and Koljonen, 2018). Recent research further shows that interventionist practices gain legitimacy under certain conditions, such as protecting vulnerable groups or addressing urgent societal issues (Shultziner, 2025). Journalists may therefore view taking positions on social justice issues, such as the Black Lives Matter movement, as consistent with their professional responsibilities (Harlow, 2022; Konieczna and Santa Maria, 2023). Similarly, in environmental journalism, advocacy and collaboration with local communities are common (Keilmann et al., 2025). At the same time, journalists often distinguish between forms of interventionism, normalizing advocacy-oriented engagement while rejecting overtly partisanship (Shultziner, 2025). This suggests an emerging differentiation between more and less legitimate forms of interventionism, shaped by perceptions of public interest, factual grounding, and proportionality.

This raises broader questions about the boundaries of interventionist journalism. As it involves promoting values or causes, its legitimacy may depend on the nature of those causes (e.g., Shultziner, 2025). Interventionist practices may be criticized for resembling propaganda, strategic communication, or ideological persuasion, particularly when transparency, evidence, or accountability are lacking. In the contemporary digital media environment, where the boundaries between journalism, advocacy, and political communication are increasingly blurred (Di Salvo, 2020), interventionist practices can support of a wide range of causes. Rather than assuming fixed boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate forms of intervention, this study treats interventionist journalism as a contested practice whose legitimacy is shaped by audience evaluations. This perspective enables analysis of how audiences differentiate between “acceptable” and “problematic” forms of interventionist journalism in practice.

Audience perspectives on interventionist journalism

Research on (interventionist) journalistic roles and their implications for journalism-audience-relationships has traditionally focused on journalists’ perspective (Swart et al., 2022). However, perceptions of journalistic legitimacy extend beyond journalists. Different audiences may interpret journalistic interventionism differently (Shultziner, 2025; Sloam et al., 2022). While many journalists view interventionism as a deviation from norms, parts of the audience regard it as a sign of authenticity, commitment, or democratic engagement (Juarez Miro C Banjac and Hanusch, 2025; Mellado and Gajardo, 2026; Shultziner, 2025; Wunderlich L Hölig and Hasebrink, 2022).

Audiences have increasingly gained popularity both within journalism practice and studies (Uth et al., 2025). With advances in online metrics and diversified feedback channels, journalists now have far more information about their audiences and their expectations. This shift is reflected in what Swart et al. (2022) describes as an “audience turn” (p. 9) in journalism studies, highlighting the need to examine audience perspectives more closely.

Audience expectations and interventionist journalism

Recently, research has focused on examining what audiences expect from journalistic actors, their practices, and how these are perceived and evaluated by those audiences. Using qualitative interviews, Juarez Miro, Banjac and Hanusch (2025) identify activism as one of seven key expectations among Austrian audiences. Audiences expect journalists to express opinions and hold those in power accountable, particularly on morally and politically salient issues. They see it as desirable when journalists represent their values and support social causes, such as social justice and challenging political elites, while rejecting hostile communication. Instead, audiences prefer journalists to behave “assertive yet respectful” (Juarez Miro, Banjac and Hanusch, 2025, p. 10). Similarly, young Austrians view journalism as an important force “in advancing social equality and justice” (Garusi and Juarez Miro, 2025, p. 575) and in empowering citizens.

These findings are also reflected on a representative level: Loosen, Reimer and Hölig (2020) show that one of the most important expectations audiences have toward journalistic role performances is that journalists criticize bad states of affairs. Further, audiences expect journalists to advocate for social change, scrutinize businesses and politics and motivate citizens to engage in political activities – roles audiences rate as more important than journalists do (Loosen et al., 2020). This divergence on interventionist roles is also evident in a recent survey by Keilmann et al. (2025), who found that citizens expect journalism to take on an activistic role in the context of climate reporting, whereas journalists do not consider this part of their role orientation. While interventionist traits are thus generally considered important and are valued by audiences, they are not universal and might depend on the topic reported as well as contextual factors (e.g., Juarez Miro, Banjac and Hanusch, 2025). Despite audiences appreciating journalism to take on interventionist roles, expectations are still dominated by demands for factual information and objectivity (Garusi and Juarez Miro, 2025; Loosen et al., 2020), with audiences placing strong value on balanced and detached reporting “without adopting a stance” (Garusi and Juarez Miro, 2025, p. 575).

Previous research thus allows some insights into how audiences rate interventionism as a part of overall journalistic role orientations. However, research focusing explicitly on audience perspectives on interventionism and, in particularly, contextual factors potentially influencing its perceived legitimacy (Shultziner, 2025), is scarce.

Platform differences and interventionist journalism

One such factor potentially influencing evaluations of interventionist journalism are the media platforms and their affordances through which interventionism is practiced. Prior research shows that journalistic content is shaped by media logics, defined as the “news values and the storytelling techniques the media make use of to take advantage of their own medium and its format, and to be competitive in the ongoing struggle to capture people’s attention” (Strömbäck, 2008, p. 233). These logics are particularly influential in shaping how news is produced and presented on social media (e.g., Molyneux, 2015; Welbers and Opgenhaffen, 2019). Journalists frequently adapt their content to the engagement-oriented dynamics of social media by emphasizing emotional, personalized, or subjective elements in their reporting (Welbers and Opgenhaffen, 2019).

These developments can challenge traditional norms, particularly objectivity. Social media environments often blur the line between information, interpretation, commentary, contextualization and opinion (Welbers and Opgenhaffen, 2019). Consequently, journalistic practices on social media may display higher levels of subjectivity and a departure from detached journalism (Molyneux, 2015).

Importantly, “social media is not homogenous” (Hermida and Mellado, 2020, p. 866), as different platforms are characterized by distinct features. These are often conceptualized as platform affordances, which describe the perceived range of actions that users can perform within a platform’s technological environment (Hayes et al., 2016), distinguishing the structural and technological conditions that shape communication practices (Hayes et al., 2016). Building on this perspective, Hermida and Mellado (2020) propose five analytical dimensions of social media affordances: (1) structure and design, (2) aesthetics, (3) genre conventions, (4) rhetorical practices, and (5) interaction mechanisms and intentionality.

Previous research suggests that these platform characteristics influence not only news distribution, but also the content journalists prioritize. For example, news on Facebook tends to favor softer topics and storytelling formats (Lamot, 2022).

While research has examined how journalists adapt to platforms (e.g., Anter, 2025; Hase et al., 2023; Welbers and Opgenhaffen, 2019), less attention has been paid to how audiences evaluate platform-specific practices. When encountering content on social media platforms, studies suggest users apply different personalization and evaluation tactics, with research showing that young adults tend to differ in their evaluations of news on different platforms: traditional outlets are oftentimes associated with hard news, Facebook tends to be connected to a higher risk of misinformation, TikTok is regularly perceived as a platform for entertainment, and Instagram tends to be seen as a platform providing softer news (Hendrickx, 2024; Swart, 2023). However, little is known about how audiences interpret interventionist practices across platforms or how expectations vary by communicative context.

Overall, two gaps thus remain. First, much of the existing research examines audience expectations toward journalism broadly, without systematically addressing interventionist journalistic practices specifically. Second, although journalism increasingly takes place across digital platforms, little is known about how audiences evaluate interventionist journalism in different platform contexts. This is particularly relevant given that platform affordances shape both journalistic practices and the ways in which audiences encounter and interpret journalistic content. Understanding how audiences evaluate different forms of journalistic interventionism can therefore provide insights into how journalistic legitimacy is negotiated in contemporary media environments. Examining audience perspectives can also help identify which forms of journalism audiences consider meaningful and worthy of support (see Costera Meijer’s (2013) concept of valuable journalism).

Focusing on young adults presents a particularly promising perspective on interventionist journalism. First, young audiences represent a media-saturated audience, relying on a broad variety of information sources, often bypassing traditional media (Newman et al., 2025). At the same time, young adults play a decisive role in shaping the future of the media landscape (Peters et al., 2022).

Second, analyzing young audiences’ perceptions of interventionist journalistic practices is particularly significant given rising demands, especially among young adults, that media organizations take explicit stances on pressing societal issues (Moffett and Rice, 2024). Young audiences often define news content in a broader sense, focusing on personal or societal relevance (Holt et al., 2025) instead of norms of objectivity. Given that interventionist journalism explicitly aims to advance and engage with issues of societal significance, this might result in stronger expectations and acceptance of interventionist journalistic practices among younger audiences. By foregrounding young adult audience perspectives, this study seeks to advance a more nuanced understanding of evolving expectations of journalism and their implications for the epistemological role of journalism in society.

To conceptualize this group more precisely, this study focuses on Generation Z (born between 1995 and 2010) (Cilliers, 2017). Generational approaches are useful because they capture shared formative media experiences that shape attitudes toward journalism. Unlike millennials, who experienced the transition from traditional to digital media environments, Generation Z has grown up in a fully digitized and platform-dominated media ecosystem and is often described as a generation of social natives (Newman et al., 2025). As a result, their news repertoires are more strongly centered on social, interactive platforms and algorithmically curated news environments (Hendrickx, 2024). These environments often blend information, commentary, and interpretation (Molyneux, 2015), potentially shaping how journalistic norms such as objectivity and advocacy are perceived. Despite lower engagement with legacy media, Generation Z often shows strong interest in public affairs, like concern for civic and social justice issues (Tamboer et al., 2022).

Examining how this group evaluates interventionist journalism provides insights into how platform-socialized audiences understand journalistic norms. While research on journalistic roles and interventionism has expanded (e.g., Hanitzsch et al., 2019; Shultziner, 2025), audience perspectives—particularly from qualitative approaches—remain underexplored. By foregrounding audience perspectives, this study responds to calls for more audience-oriented research in how journalism is evaluated in everyday media use (Swart et al., 2022).

The research questions guiding this study are:

RQ1: How do young adult audiences evaluate interventionist journalism?

RQ2: How do expectations of young adult audiences towards interventionist journalism differ between legacy media and digital (social) media platforms?

Method

To address the research questions, 30 in-depth interviews were conducted in Austria to explore how young adults evaluate interventionist journalistic practices. Austria is characterized by high digital news use, strong public service media, and moderate trust in news. Recent political debates on media independence and bias further heighten the salience of interventionism (Newman et al., 2025), making Austria a useful setting to study how young audiences navigate tensions between objectivity, advocacy, and platform-specific norms.

A qualitative approach was employed to capture how young people evaluate different forms of interventionist journalism, and the norms shaping these evaluations. Interviews were conducted by undergraduate Communication Science students as part of a bachelor research seminar focused on qualitative research methods. Throughout the semester, students received training in semi-structured interviewing and qualitative design, including interview preparation, question formulation, and facilitation, as well as practice and pilot interviews. To ensure consistency, all students received standardized instructions (Banjac and Hanusch, 2022). The grading of the course was based on the overall methodological assignment rather than the substantive content of interview responses. Students were informed that their grades would depend on appropriate interviewing techniques for qualitative interviews, as learned in class, rather than on the answers given by participants. This approach aimed to minimize incentives for socially desirable responses (Banjac and Hanusch, 2022). The first author reviewed the recordings and transcripts to ensure that interviews followed the semi-structured format and generated sufficiently detailed responses, ensuring data quality. As all interviews were deemed good in quality, all 30 interviews were included in the analysis.

A purposive, theoretical sampling strategy (Strübing, 2024) was used to capture a broad range of perspectives within Generation Z. Purposive sampling aims to include participants who can provide diverse perspectives on a phenomenon rather than to achieve statistical representativeness. Students recruited participants from their extended social networks, following explicit guidelines to ensure variation across gender (male/female), occupation, residence (urban/rural areas, geographical diversity along the different parts of Austria), and familiarity with journalism (lower/higher familiarity). In line with qualitative research standards, the sample size of 30 interviews was sufficient to reach theoretical saturation and identify recurring patterns while enabling in-depth analysis (Dworkin, 2012).

The final sample comprised young adults aged 18–27 (Ø 21.7 years), with near gender balance (13 men, 17 women), diverse educational backgrounds (secondary school diploma to a bachelor’s degree), and both students and employed participants from different Austrian regions, with varying degrees of familiarity with journalism. All participants were native German speakers who had lived in Austria for several years and primarily relied on Austrian media for news.

The interview guide, developed by the first author in collaboration with student interviewers, draws on prior research on interventionism and audience expectations (Ginosar and Reich, 2022; Mellado, 2020; Shultziner, 2025). It covered participants’ media consumption, perceptions and interpretations of interventionist journalism, including different forms and different platforms ¹ .

Interviews lasted between 20 and 47 minutes (Ø 27:51) and were conducted between April and June 2025. Participants were anonymized using gender-coded identifiers (F/M + number). Transcripts were produced and anonymized by students. Thematic analysis was conducted by the first author using MAXQDA, combining deductive categories from existing research with inductively derived themes.

The study received institutional review board approval (IRB #1459, Approval ID-code: 20250812_065). All participants were informed about the purpose of the research and provided informed consent.

Results

Young adults’ evaluations of interventionist journalism

First, we want to shed closer light on young adults’ general evaluations of interventionist journalism and its practices (RQ1). Interviewees’ evaluations of interventionism in journalism were closely tied to their understanding of journalism’s general societal function. A recurrent theme was that journalism should primarily provide neutral, factual information, regarded as the foundation of credibility and professionalism, and is thus often seen as the opposite of interventionism. However, respondents also emphasized that professional journalism requires flexibility to adopt multiple roles, including interventionist ones. As one participant noted, “They should be able to do both: report neutrally, but also take a stand on important issues. It really depends on the context” (M1). Participants linked this dual role to journalism’s social responsibility, recognizing interventionism as sometimes essential in political or global issues, such as the Israel–Gaza conflict: “A good journalist should be able to observe neutrally, but also intervene when needed. (…) An article should contain a certain degree of acceptance of the journalist’s personal opinion” (M5).

Across interviews, interventionism was thus viewed as a legitimate and, at times, necessary aspect of journalistic practice, provided it remains transparent. Respondents consistently stressed that interventionist content must be clearly labeled as commentary or opinion to avoid confusion with objective reporting. Transparency therefore emerged as a key condition for credibility: “So if they [journalists] are actively shaping and positioning themselves, then this should be clear and transparent, and maybe even stated somewhere” (F1). When such transparency is lacking, interventionist journalism risks being perceived as manipulative, agenda-driven, or polarizing. As one participant put it, “I think I like it anyway, as long as it’s labeled” (F5).

Building on these perceptions, the interviews revealed that evaluations of interventionism are highly context-dependent and shaped by the functions interventionist journalism provides. Despite generally positive assessments, respondents weighed advantages against potential drawbacks. On the positive side, interventionist journalism was seen as socially impactful and enlightening, for instance by exposing corruption or injustice: “That's really good and interesting in itself, because it makes things more transparent. Especially in politics, transparency is often lacking. I think it’s really important when things are revealed that would otherwise remain concealed” (F6). It was also viewed as a catalyst for social change, encouraging reflection and public debate: “One advantage is that it can shake things up and achieve change more easily, expose grievances and get the audience to question things more. Conversations and discussions are likely to happen more often” (F11).

Another perceived advantage was interventionism’s role in facilitating opinion formation. By clearly articulating positions, interventionist journalism offers readers clear points of reference to help them form opinions: “The advantage is that you can form an opinion more quickly, because you either directly agree or disagree. With neutral media, you often have to read several articles or media outlets to form your own opinion” (F1). Young audiences describe interventionist content as authentic, engaging, and emotionally resonant, particularly on social media: “I just think it’s a bit more authentic and honest when it’s not just neutral, and that’s definitely more appealing to me” (F7).

Nevertheless, participants also voiced concerns, in particular concerning the erosion of objectivity and the risk of bias or manipulation. Excessive interventionism was compared to propaganda or political instrumentalization, potentially distorting public debate: “It can be a tricky balancing act. Interventionist reporting can also be motivated by certain political forces that the consumer might not be aware of, leading to distortion” (F11). Respondents also sometimes associated interventionism with polarization and audience alienation, noting that overly forceful positions can provoke disengagement or news avoidance: “I think if it happens too much and gets too extreme, it could lead people to turn away from journalism” (F2).

In summary, young audiences deem interventionism a legitimate and often valuable journalistic practice, particularly when it fosters debate, reflection, and opinion formation. Yet, its evaluation is conditional on context and transparency: interventionist reporting is welcomed when clearly distinguished from factual reporting but viewed critically when manipulative, extreme, or agenda-driven.

Differences in perceived legitimacy across different forms of interventionist journalism

Regarding RQ1, our interviews further showed that participants’ evaluations of journalistic interventionism depend on the form in which such interventions occur.

Young adult audiences frequently mentioned investigative journalism as one sub-form of interventionism they view as highly legitimate and essential. It was perceived as a core component of journalism, valued for exposing concealed or overlooked issues: “Investigative journalism is really important, especially when it comes to uncovering things that no one else would notice. That’s one of the most meaningful forms of journalism” (M1).

Evaluations of advocacy journalism were more ambivalent. Critics associate it with risks of bias or paternalism, while supporters view it as legitimate when promoting human rights, anti-discrimination, or the representation of marginalized groups. In this sense, advocacy journalism is seen as a crucial tool against inequality and right-wing extremism. One participant highlighted the work of Alexandra Stanić, a Viennese journalist who uses both traditional and social media to advocate for marginalized communities: “Especially now, when there’s been a clear shift to the right that can be felt all around the world, and the rights of marginalized groups are being fought against really strongly. I think it’s extremely important that there’s journalists out there taking a clear stand and advocating against this” (M3).

Furthermore, participants mentioned particular journalistic formats in which they consider interventionism to be more legitimate than in others. Opinionated and evaluative formats are generally accepted as legitimate forms of journalistic interventionism, provided they are clearly distinguished from factual reporting. Respondents value opinion formats as catalysts for public debate, while noting that they should complement rather than replace neutral reporting: “It’s okay and important every now and then, but they shouldn’t always and everywhere include an opinion” (F15). Journalistic calls to action emerged as the most contested form of journalistic interventionism. Many participants regard them as beyond journalism’s societal task, potentially undermining neutrality. Others emphasize their potential to stimulate civic engagement: “It’s a good thing because when journalists call for action, society can become more engaged. These days, I think we need more engagement” (F14). Nonetheless, even within the group of skeptics, certain acceptance exists when such appeals serve ethically unambiguous purposes, such as humanitarian aid or fundraising: “It makes sense to me to use this reach to do something good or call for donations. And just because you link to fundraising campaigns doesn’t mean you have to donate when you read about them” (F15). This points to another factor influencing the acceptance of interventionist practices: The topic at stake.

Differences in perceived legitimacy across different topics of interventionist journalism

In addition to pointing out variations in legitimacy across the forms interventionist journalism is practiced in, audiences also differentiated between topics regarding interventionism’s legitimacy (RQ1).

Interventionism was considered problematic in highly contested domains such as party politics or geopolitical conflicts, where strong positioning could foster polarization. Conversely, clear moral issues, including human rights, democracy, discrimination, or environmental protection, were regarded as contexts where journalists not only may but should take a stance. As one interviewee explained: “I think it’s necessary in some cases, especially when it comes to humanitarian issues. When it comes to moral, ethical, and human issues, you can’t just be neutral; you have to take a clear stance for purely human and moral reasons” (F2). Interventionist approaches were particularly praised in the context of morally or politically charged topics that require journalists positioning themselves from the view of the interviewees and combine information with engagement: “But I also feel that with topics like (…) Neo-Nazi groups, it has to be that way; it can’t be presented neutrally because it just isn’t neutral” (M8). Such examples were seen as authentic and effective in reaching younger audiences.

At the same time, respondents called for caution in reporting on ‘sensitive topics’, such as asylum policy, where excessive interventionism was thought to risk one-sided framing and polarization: “Any topic is debatable; but some are more sensitive than others. With more sensitive topics like asylum policy, you have to be a little more careful when initiating a discussion or reporting on them” (M2).

In summary, the findings demonstrate that young adult audiences’ evaluations of interventionist journalism are shaped by form, format and topic. Investigative journalism generally enjoys broad legitimacy, whereas advocacy, opinion, and calls to action are accepted only under certain normative conditions. From our interviewees’ perspective, issues perceived as morally clear often invite or even demand intervention, whereas contested or sensitive domains call for restraint. Across these variations, transparency and factual accuracy remain essential criteria that young adults view as prerequisites. Journalistic intervention is considered legitimate insofar as it is grounded in verifiable information, incorporates multiple perspectives, and avoids excessive dramatization or emotionalization, which participants perceived as detrimental to journalistic legitimacy and credibility.

Journalistic interventionism and platform differences

After analyzing young adults’ evaluations of interventionist journalism in general, we now turn to the second research question (RQ2): how interviewees distinguish between legacy media and digital (social) platforms in their assessments of the legitimacy of interventionist journalism.

Across all interviews, respondents consistently linked their judgments of legitimacy to the communicative norms and affordances of each platform. Traditional media were associated with journalistic objectivity and factual neutrality, aligning with previous research (Maras, 2013; Schudson and Anderson, 2009). Here, participants expressed a clear expectation of minimal interventionism. They valued newspapers and television for balanced, contextualized reporting and a commitment to objectivity and verification, reflecting a preference for a descriptive or explanatory form of journalism rather than overt advocacy. Traditional outlets were further praised for their capacity to explain complex issues and provide background information: “Traditional journalism is slower and more in-depth, but when I want to know about something that happens right now, they often haven’t got it” (F8). When interventionist elements appear in traditional media, particularly opinion-oriented contributions, they are only considered legitimate if explicitly labeled (e.g., editorials, commentaries). This again underscores the importance of transparency as a precondition for legitimate journalistic interventionism. Respondents further acknowledge that certain formats, such as in-depth features and long-form investigative reporting, can legitimately incorporate mild forms of interventionism, namely, contextual interpretation and moral framing, when serving an informative or social-purpose function: “I think people’s expectations of journalism have changed, and for me, it’s more the depth of reporting that still gives it an edge over online stories and social media” (F15). Traditional outlets were described as trustworthy yet rigid, valued for depth and verification but criticized for limited plurality and a lack of relatable perspectives. This ambivalence suggest that audiences draw a boundary between acceptable interpretive intervention and what they perceive as excessive advocacy.

Social media and digital journalism platforms, in contrast, were described as spaces where journalistic interventionism is not only accepted but expected. These environments were characterized as fast, emotionally charged, and highly personalized. As one participant explained: “I personally use online media more because it’s more casual […]. But the content and information are much more superficial” (M4). Respondents associate these platforms with expressive forms of interventionism, personal commentary, emotional storytelling, and identity-driven advocacy, while simultaneously acknowledging the risks of superficiality and bias. As one respondent says: “On TikTok and Instagram, I expect journalists or others to post their opinions. Because these platforms are very much about attitude and personality” (F17).

Within social media, participants differentiated between various forms and intensities of interventionism. TikTok and Instagram Reels are considered especially effective for attention-oriented journalistic interventions. Personal journalistic accounts on TikTok are deemed spaces for interpretive and affective interventions, where journalists share subjective assessments of current events: “I always think it’s exciting to hear how journalists classify and assess current societal developments” (M1).

TikTok was perceived as the most overtly interventionist platform, marked by immediacy, emotion, and advocacy, though effects were seen as fleeting due to the platform’s rapid pace: “I just feel like it involves more intervention, but TikTok is so fast that you quickly scroll on and then don’t really notice it so intensely” (M2). Instagram, by contrast, was framed as a site for informational or identity-based interventionism, where journalists and creators use credibility, lived experience, or minority perspectives to explain underrepresented issues: “I like the Instagram posts from ‘Chefredaktion’, they have many editors with migrant background, and their posts are often informative. They often do great work, because it's done by people who belong to a minority, and who can really immerse you into that world” (F13). X (formerly Twitter) was associated with confrontational interventionism, where stance-taking and critique are highly visible and polarizing: “I think X has also changed, it has become extremely populist” (M8).

YouTube and podcasts were consistently distinguished from fast-paced social media platforms and formats. There, respondents articulated expectations of reflective and analytical interventionism, forms of stance-taking that combine expert commentary, contextual analysis, and narrative engagement. Both platforms were described as spaces for legitimate, knowledge-based journalistic interventions, where audiences deliberately seek depth: “Podcasts are great if you really want to dive deep into a topic” (F17). Another participant added: “They are often very topic-specific, so you have to actively decide that you want to listen to a news podcast” (M12). YouTube and podcasts were thus valued as deliberative environments where well-researched, opinionated contributions are welcome: “I think it's cool that many podcasts also bring in a lot of expert opinions. It helps a lot in classifying information and forming your own opinion” (F4). At the same time, respondents emphasize the necessity of media literacy and contextual awareness. They highlight the need to critically evaluate interventionist content and, when necessary, to return to traditional outlets for verification.

In conclusion, young audiences articulated a platform-specific hierarchy of legitimate journalistic interventionism. Traditional media were linked to factual, low-intervention reporting; social media to expressive and identity-driven forms of intervention; and long-form digital formats such as YouTube and podcasts to reflective and analytical forms of interventionism. Thus, rather than rejecting interventionism outright, young adults evaluate its legitimacy relative to platform norms, communicative purpose, and transparency, illustrating that interventionist journalism is not uniformly accepted or rejected, but contextually negotiated across media environments.

Discussion and conclusion

This study examined how young adults evaluate interventionist journalism and how these evaluations vary across media platforms. It contributes to existing research by focusing on audience evaluations of interventionist journalism, suggesting a conditional logic of legitimacy shaped by topic, platform, and perceived moral clarity (Gajardo et al., 2025).

Our findings reveal a nuanced understanding of journalism’s role: rather than rejecting interventionism, participants consider it legitimate when it aligns with moral clarity, remains transparent, and fits platform-specific norms. This points to broader shifts in how journalistic legitimacy is constructed in increasingly platformized media environments.

Participants reaffirmed neutrality and factuality as baseline expectations for journalistic credibility but did not view them as incompatible with taking a stance. Instead, objectivity was understood as contextual: journalists are expected to clearly distinguish between fact and opinion, not to avoid interpretation or advocacy altogether. This supports research highlighting transparency as an emerging alternative to traditional objectivity (Karlsson, 2010; Ward, 2009; Wunderlich, Hölig and Hasebrink, 2022) and resonates with previous studies, naming transparency as one key marker of journalistic trustworthiness (Uth, 2024), showing that audiences value approachability, empathy, and affective communication (Mellado and Gajardo, 2026). Journalistic legitimacy thus appears less as an inherent property than as a negotiated construct (Shultziner, 2025) shaped by platform-specific expectations.

The findings further show that interventionist journalism’s legitimacy is context-dependent (Skovsgaard et al., 2024). Interventionism is appropriate, sometimes even necessary, when issues are perceived to be morally unambiguous, such as human rights, democracy, or environmental protection. Here, taking a stance is seen as part of journalistic responsibility rather than bias, extending prior research showing that audiences value journalism that reflects their values, supports social causes and empowers citizens (Garusi and Juarez Miro, 2025; Juarez Miro, Banjac and Hanusch, 2025), echoing prior findings that audiences support journalistic activism in some contexts but not others (Keilmann et al., 2025; Loosen et al., 2020).

By contrast, interventionism on politically contested or polarizing issues is often viewed as problematic, raising concerns about manipulation and a loss of trust. This conditional acceptance aligns with the notion of contextual legitimacy (Shultziner, 2025) and highlights the fragility of interventionism’s public acceptance, as well as blurred boundaries between journalism and activism (Di Salvo, 2020).

This pattern reveals a broader normative tension. Participants apply situational standards: interventionism is accepted in perceived morally clear contexts but rejected in contested ones. While this may strengthen journalism’s role in defending core democratic values, it also raises concerns for pluralistic democracies, which depend on contestation and diverse perspectives (Karppinen, 2018). If interventionism is only accepted selectively, shared evaluative standards may fragment, potentially weakening journalism’s function as a space for public discourse. Future research should more closely analyze the role political attitudes play here: While we find that interventionism is less accepted in politically contested contexts, we see stronger acceptance when it comes to human rights and morally clear contexts – however, stances on human rights and what counts as morally clear contexts might also be dependent on political attitudes.

A key contribution of this study is its focus on platform differences. It shows that expectations of interventionism vary systematically across media environments, linking audience evaluations to platform-specific media use, an area so far underexplored (Ginosar and Reich, 2022; Shultziner, 2025).

Legacy media such as newspapers and television remain associated with factuality, balance, and verification, and audiences expect limited interventionism. When opinion is present, it is accepted only when explicitly labeled. In contrast, social media platforms, especially TikTok and Instagram, are perceived as inherently expressive spaces where personal positioning and advocacy are expected. Prior research shows that Instagram tends to be associated with softer news and TikTok with entertainment (Hendrickx, 2024; Holt et al., 2025; Swart, 2023). However, TikTok appears to be a worthwhile platform for interventionist journalism, allowing journalists to produce videos in which they can contextualize and explain the positions taken. Potentially, interventionist journalism is not only perceived as news content, but also as a form of entertainment for young adult audiences, which may explain its stronger association with TikTok.

Long-form digital formats such as YouTube and podcasts occupy a middle ground, legitimizing reflective and analytical interventions that combine stance-taking with expert contextualization. These differences reflect platform-specific affordances and media logics that shape both journalistic production and audience expectations (e.g., Anter, 2025; Hermida and Mellado, 2020). Social media prioritizes visibility, personalization, and affective engagement, thereby normalizing more interventionist styles of communication, and foster a more relational and performative model of journalism, in which credibility is achieved through authenticity, visibility, and engagement rather than detachment. Legacy media operate under institutionalized norms of verification and objectivity that constrain overt positioning (McNair, 2017).

For journalism practice, this suggests that different platforms require different forms of journalism, forcing journalism to re-think its business models in alignment with platform affordances (e.g., Anter, 2025) – such as a focus on facts and hard news in legacy media, while digital social media, TikTok in particular, will be connected to softer, more entertainment-oriented formats. However, this can also be critically examined: Journalism studies and practice have long debated whether, and to what extent, journalism should yield to audience demands. Alternatively, journalism may be challenged to find ways to make more informing, objective content engaging and compelling for young audiences on social media.

More broadly, findings indicate that young adults expect a degree of interventionism as part of journalism’s social responsibility, particularly on issues with clear moral stakes (Mellado and Gajardo, 2026). At the same time, audiences distinguish between “acceptable” and “problematic” forms of interventionism: it is valued when transparent, fact-based, and aligned with shared values, and rejected when perceived as manipulative or ideological. This distinction is particularly salient in social media, where boundaries between journalism, activism, and opinion are increasingly blurred (Di Salvo, 2020).

Overall, the results suggest a generational redefinition of journalistic legitimacy. Young adult audiences balance expectations of factual rigor with demands for moral engagement, supporting prior findings that younger audiences are more supportive of opinionated journalism on social media and prefer news styles that align with the platform-specific communicative norms (Fisher et al., 2024). Legitimacy is thus negotiated across topic, platform, and situational context, suggesting a post-objectivist orientation (McNair, 2017) in which trust derives from transparency, openness, and ethical engagement rather than absolute impartiality (Loosen et al., 2020; Mellado and Gajardo, 2026; Uth, 2024). By highlighting how young adult audiences interpret and negotiate journalism’s democratic role, this study underscores the need for professional norms that emphasize transparency and contextual sensitivity to build trust. Future journalism practice and research should explore how such evolving understandings of legitimacy can help sustain trust and relevance in changing media landscapes.

This study has several limitations. Its qualitative sample of Austrian young adults limits generalizability (Hallin and Mancini, 2004). Future research could test these findings across contexts and examine how perceptions translate into actual media use and trust behaviors (Swart et al., 2022). While our study took an explorative approach, future studies could examine potential correlations between audiences’ media use and their evaluations of interventionist journalism to understand how preferences for and experiences with certain media types and platforms shape perceptions of this practice. Media diaries could provide insights into how often audiences actually encounter interventionist content, and which platforms are dominant. Further, research using survey-based designs could examine the prevalence of the identified patterns in larger samples. Experimental and longitudinal designs could further explore how topic, transparency, and platform shape evaluations and trustworthiness. We also did not analyze whether the acceptance of interventionist journalism varies between institutional and personal profiles of journalists on social media – which could be further elaborated on in future studies.

In sum, young adults’ evaluations of interventionist journalism are complex, conditional and context-dependent. They expect journalism to be both informative and morally engaged, objective yet transparent, and adaptable to different media environments. These findings highlight a broader transformation of journalistic legitimacy in which audiences play an active role in defining credible and relevant journalism (Mellado and Gajardo, 2026; Swart et al., 2022).