Media consumption is no longer simply something we do; it is something we are. The podcast you listen to, the newspaper you subscribe to, the clips you share – all of these act as signals of identity. Media have become part of our social positioning, operating much like our taste in music or our political views. For those of us working in PR, that shift presents both opportunities and complications.

The trend is perhaps most obvious in the United States, where Fox News does not merely report on the Trump movement but functions as a megaphone and rallying point for MAGA. It is less about detached journalism and more about community. Yet this is not entirely new. One could argue that media have always played a similar role.

In Sweden, for example, there is a long tradition of newspapers that have not only informed their readers but also represented a particular worldview. Newspapers such as Dagen or Land are not simply news products; they are part of a cultural community, with distinct norms and a readership that recognises itself in their pages.

What may have changed is not that media outlets have a profile, but how tightly that profile is bound up with identity and loyalty.

From Newspaper to Personality

The media themselves have encouraged this development. Over recent decades, journalists have become increasingly visible, cultivating recognisable personal brands. Newspapers such as Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet, Sweden’s largest titles, often foreground their writers’ faces and names through prominent bylines, photographs, social media feeds, columns and podcasts.

Investing in high-profile commentators undoubtedly helps attract readers. Yet it also means audiences are following individuals as much as institutions. The risk for a newspaper is obvious: if a journalist moves on, their audience may move with them. It is the same risk companies take when they rely heavily on a well-known spokesperson.

At the same time, publications such as The Economist show that it is possible to remain largely anonymous – articles are unsigned – while maintaining a strong and distinctive voice. A clear editorial stance does not require personality-driven journalism. Nevertheless, today’s media logic often rewards exactly that.

And again, there is historical precedent. For much of the twentieth century, most Swedish towns had both Social Democratic and conservative newspapers. Choosing a paper was a political decision, often also a class-based one. The difference was that political positioning tended to be confined to the editorial pages, while news reporting aspired to be more neutral and broadly shared. Today, opinion, identity and news selection are far more intertwined – not only among influencers but increasingly within mainstream media too.

The Journalist as Influencer

Influencers have simply taken the logic further. Their audiences are built around identity: people follow them less for hard facts than for shared values, emotions and a sense of belonging. When journalism moves in the same direction, it begins to inhabit the same ecosystem.

Journalists are now expected to cultivate followings, run their own channels and maintain a presence on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. In many respects, they operate as entrepreneurs. In such a system, nuance does not always travel as well as clarity or confrontation. That may be good for clicks, but it is less clear whether it serves society equally well.

Some commentators even suggest that media consumption is beginning to resemble religion. Not in the theological sense, but in the way media can function as communities that offer narratives about how the world works, who is virtuous and who is villainous, and which facts are legitimate – or dismissed as “fake news”.

Those who consume the “right” media feel affirmed in their worldview; those who consume the “wrong” ones are deemed misguided. The parallels with religious or sectarian dynamics are not difficult to spot: each group has its authorities, its shared stories and its own version of truth.

If media choice becomes an identity marker rather than a shared public space, a risk emerges. Democracies rely on a common frame of reference. If we cannot agree on which events matter or which facts are credible, political debate risks becoming a clash of tribes rather than a discussion of substance.

What This Means for PR

For those working in PR and communications, this shift is both an opportunity and a minefield. As media become more identity-driven, the rules of engagement change.

The traditional notion of earned media assumed that newsrooms shared a broadly similar mission: to report what is relevant, accurate and important. A strong story – a report, a product launch, a significant development – had the potential to be picked up widely because editors applied comparable news values.

If, however, media operate more like cultural clubs, that logic shifts. It is no longer enough to have a newsworthy story. The story must also fit the narrative that a particular audience is predisposed to accept.

In one sense, this makes PR more efficient. Targeting becomes sharper and messaging more precise. In another sense, it makes the work more demanding. Each outlet may require a carefully tailored approach, and communicators must develop a far deeper understanding of the narratives that shape different audiences.

The choice of platform becomes a statement in itself. Appearing in a particular publication or alongside a particular profile does not merely extend reach; it signals alignment. In an identity-driven media environment, distribution and positioning are inseparable.

For PR professionals, the central question is no longer just “What do we want to say?” or even “Who do we want to reach?” It is increasingly, “ What does it signal about us that we are speaking here?”

Michael Falk, Agera PR