The Struggle for Originality in National Newsrooms: Why All News Seems the Same

Henry North reflects on how newsroom cuts and digital shortcuts are eroding the originality and diversity of stories we see.

Jul 03, 2025

In April 2024 and July 2024, I spent two weeks inside two different newsrooms: one week at the iconic BBC Broadcasting House and another at the relatively new Tortoise Media (now rebranded as The Observer), during the general election. At the time, I was studying an MA and the experience gave me the opportunity to reflect on the broader landscape of media organisations – how they operate and where they source their news.

We’ve already explored the decline of local journalism in The Rose, but from my time in these national newsrooms, what struck me most was seeing how sharply the decline has eroded originality at the national level. Journalism is about people and the main problem with national newsrooms – other than being London-centric - is that reporters are not getting out into the world to find original stories. A computer screen isn’t a substitute for community links. If you feel like no matter where you get your news, you keep seeing the same stories - that’s because you are. Our news now consists of three or four big stories with talking heads or celebrity journalists giving their ‘expert’ opinions. So how did we get here?

For a combination of reasons, newsrooms no longer have access to the same resources they had fifteen years ago. As a result, robust networks of on-the-ground reporters have been cut, meaning less stories are being covered. With fewer reporters embedded in towns, cities, and communities, countless stories — especially those tied to local corruption or public service failure – never rise to national attention. Take, for example, our podcast with Dr. John Mulligan, a Unite Union representative who detailed the devastating effects of austerity on mental health care services. And yet, stories like this rarely break through to the national news. The media’s ability to connect individual experiences to broader political trends has weakened because of a lack of interest and infrastructure.

National newsrooms now heavily supplement their reporting with news from “the wire” - a bulletin-like injection of news provided by third-party agencies - rather than their own network of reporters. These services are important for speed and international coverage, but they’re often surface-level and lack depth. Some of the main providers of wire services are the Associated Press and Reuters who have international networks of reporters but tend to leave analysis to familiar outlets like The Guardian, The Times and The Telegraph. Many of these papers are owned by billionaires or hedge funds, and while that doesn’t mean every editorial is biased, it does influence the framing of mainstream debate.

During my week at the BBC, I was surprised at how little connection there was with people from outside of the office. Interviewees are sourced via X or Google - platforms shaped by algorithms and, in X’s case, by Elon Musk’s increasingly erratic decisions about moderation and visibility. In-person interviews are rare. Most are conducted over Zoom, which degrades their quality: grainy images, stuttering audio, and diminished human connection. When was the last time that you saw someone other than the presenter live in the BBC News studio?

The lack of original stories is a national problem, but it is not irreversible. Building community contacts takes time and patience - it demands a willingness to speak to people who might not have over a thousand followers on X. News can’t be reduced to scrolling through X - or even worse – an email from a PR company. If we want journalism that really reflects our society, reporters need to return to the field.